Bush’s Middle East Record: ‘Pure Calamity’
“In this region, George Bush has failed as few American presidents before him. His diplomatic balance sheet is pure calamity – and his last tour of the Middle East this week was a reminder of it. … With him, the United States has definitively moved passed the role of even-handed mediator to that of hallucinating prosecutor. But even more incredible is that he still believes in a peace agreement between the Israeli and the Palestinians before his departure next January.
Commenting on President Bush’s thinly-veiled foray in the U.S. presidential race, Delafon writes:
“The Republican president even took the opportunity of his tour to engage in domestic politics. Without naming him, he lashed out at Democratic candidate Barack Obama, likening him to those who wanted to “talk to the Nazis” because he believes that the United States has more to gain by talking to Iran and Syria. … In any case, this is something the French and British have already understood. After having followed Bush for too long, they recently resumed contact with Hamas. Secretly.”
The Chronicle of Gilles Delafon
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
May 18, 2008
France – Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien – Original Article (French)
In this region, George Bush has failed as few American presidents before him. His diplomatic balance sheet is pure calamity – and his last tour of the Middle East this week was a reminder of it.
In his eight years as president, he has managed to weaken his Arab allies and strengthen their enemies. Of course Israel has found in him its most ardent defender. In a speech Thursday before the Knesset, he delivered a vibrant plea in favor of the “land of the chosen people,” only mentioning the possibility of a Palestinian State at the very distant horizon, preferring instead to stigmatize Iran and Hamas, the resurgence of which he has failed to counter.
With him, the United States has definitively moved passed the role of even-handed mediator to that of hallucinating prosecutor. But even more incredible is that he still believes in a peace agreement between the Israeli and the Palestinians before his departure next January – a success that would soften his failure to build a more democratic Middle East. This was the purpose of his stay in Egypt this weekend, but not a person there believes him.
So on Friday, when he disembarked in Saudi Arabia to demand more oil for the American consumer, the Saudis did a poor job hiding their discomfort. Among other things, this is because Bush had paid no heed to the peace plan put forward by King Abdullah, because during Bush’s presidency, Sunnis in Iraq have been decimated and are being swept away in Lebanon, and because the Palestinians of Hamas – who are also Sunni – have long been dependent on Teheran [reference to U.S. pressure on moderate Arabs not to deal with Hamas].
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of President Bush’s trip and the U.S. election.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Bush’s Middle East Record: ‘Pure Calamity’”
[...] Carnacki wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBush’s Middle East Record: ‘Pure Calamity’ May 18th, 2008 by WILLIAM KERN Continuing with WORLDMEETS.US’ coverage of the global reaction to President Bush’s Middle East trip, Gilles Delafon of France’s Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien writes in part: “In this region, George Bush has failed as few American presidents before him. His diplomatic balance sheet is pure calamity – and his last tour of the Middle East this week was a reminder of it. … With him, the United States has definit [...]
In any case, this is something the French and British have already understood. After having followed Bush for too long, they recently resumed contact with Hamas. Secretly.
And this is precisely what I have been saying all along. You do not outwardly and openly embrace those who embark upon murder, mayhem and regional instabilty by having your highest levels of government officials embrace them for talks and yet:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like.
This is precisely why he is being tagged an appeaser and it is precisely why those defending him have gone ballistic. The truth hurts. Now if he had said he will engage in back door, behind the scene, SECRET negotiations then I would have said. Good job. We have been doing that for years. Even our allies deal with those they do not like behind closed doors in secret.
Uh- I think the one who has caused the most regional instability is Bush.
And we have always talked with murderers—- Reagan talked with the Soviets—-Nixon talked with the Communists in China , and Clinton talked with members of the IRA. There is no possiblity of a peace accord unless all parties are included.
:Now if he had said he will engage in back door, behind the scene, SECRET negotiations …..”
—————————————————————
Just how do you say publically, so we'll know, that SECRET negotiaions, are planned, I wonder.?
This is such a hot-button issue, that I don't think it's possible to discuss it publically at all, for the present.
What's been said, has been said. it signals a general drift. If we don't want to give countreis like Iran an entire game plan, not too much open public talking is possible.
Let he campaign go on.
Let the future bring what it will bring. I'm only guessing,, but I don't think Obama will be Bush,, no matter what he says or doesn't say. about negotioations.
On the other hand, I think he'll ifnd things a lot tougher going than what is admitted publically, as well. Iran is too strong to be easy to talk to now.
Runasim,
Neocon is mischaracterizing what it means to appease. Appeasement is not the same thing direct diplomacy. Appeasement is giving things to your enemies to placate them.
Would Neocon be willing to tar Reagan and JFK as appeasers for directly dealing with the Soviet Union?
In any case, this is something the French and British have already understood. After having followed Bush for too long, they recently resumed contact with Hamas. Secretly.
Let me reprint part of the ops post. If indeed this is factual. It is the ops quote…..Not mine.
Secondly the point of secret negotiations is to make way for potential ground breaking work later on. Secret negotiations prevent a 1000 thumbs in the pie. If Barak Obama is going to negotiate with Hamas is he going to have Israel there? Egypt? Syria? Iraq? Iran? Lebannon? France? Germany?
How many people have a vested interest in the goings on in Palestine and Israel that Barak Obama dares to have the audacity to state that he will negotiate with anyone anywhere anytime?
It is pure hogwash. It plays good but its just that. Hogwash.
Krit with respects. There is a tremendous difference between talking to a worldwide superpower such as China and the USSR as there is talking to Hamas, Taliban or even the iranians.
Secondly when you look at the actual face to face summit meetings there were months and months if not years of pre work done by everyone from secretaries on up to the Secretary of State and defense as well as meetings between Military and Generals and their aides in preparation for the actual meeting between the two leaders.
Barak Obama seems to be saying, Ill just do some preparation and go off and solve the worlds problems on my own.
Mabey he will. But at what price?
REYKJAVIK, ICELAND, OCT. 12 — The summit meeting between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev collapsed tonight after the two leaders had tentatively agreed to sweeping reductions in nuclear arsenals but deadlocked on the crucial issue of restricting the U.S. space-based missile defense program widely known as “Star Wars.”
They both were asking the others to be appeasers and neither would. The meetings failed to secure anything other then an inch at a time rather then world wide peace and nirvana as those who seem to be driving Barak Obama's peace at any cost campaign.
After he is done giving 3/4s of Israel to Hamas, he is gonna give $777 billion in reparations to black people! That's his secret Muslim plan.
Hamas will not be content with 3/4's of Israel.
“These are the founding Hamas principles on which we raise our children and in which we believe:
* Armed resistance
* Non-recognition of the occupation in any form
* All Palestine from the river to the sea
* The holy places and Jerusalem
* The right of return
Sami Abu-Zuhri, Hamas leader in Gaza, to Hamas TV, 6 April 2007:
How do you deal with that Steve? Does those supporting Barak Obama really believe that he is going to achieve peace by having direct negotiations?
Jimmy Carter got Egypt and Israel to make peace with each other and at what price. The terrorists murdered the president of Egypt for his betrayal.
Neither has the Palestinian Liberation Organisation condemned the assassination. Nabil Ramlawi, a PLO official, said: “We were expecting this end of President Sadat because we are sure he was against the interests of his people, the Arab nations and the Palestinian people.”
Bringing up that example and not THIS ONE must certainly be a sign of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.
Neocon,
If Obama, during the campaign, were planning to rely on SECRET negotianions, he couldn't very well say: ” I'm going to negotiate secretly.”
That can only be arranged by a sitting president, IN SECRET. The other countries you mention, also concern governments already in power. Surely, you see THE DIFFERENCE. between that and what a mere candidate can say and do
.Begin was assasinated, Sadat was assasiinated.
So were JFK and RFK
It's a horrible commentary on the way things are, but that's the way they are.
For that matter, no matter what the final resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were to be, some passiontately angry people would remain to try to play havoc and plot assassinations . The same goes for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the situation with Iran. No agreement, no military victory can erase ideas from peoples minds, and some of those ideas will always be nasty.
We're talking about odds here, as anywhere in life. That's a policing question.
IIf the criterion is to make 100% certain that nothing bad can' happen, then nothing can be done about anyyhing..
If that's your position, then there's nothing more to be be said., and all the separate other ideas, facts and assertions you throw in (in a jumble) can't make a difference.
Sorry, but you don't convince..
Let's not forget Lincoln.
Runasim
The mention of Sadat was in direct response to Steve who threw out some bizarre reference to Barak Obama giving Hamas 3/4 of Israel. I simply brought up the usual talking point that even they themselves stress which is NO NEGOTIATION and referenced it with another president who went way out on a limb to bring peace to the middle east, negotiated directly and what the results were.
Yes I believe that Presidents negotiate in secret. That is why no other candidate other then Barak Obama has said he will negotiate with anyone and everyone. They dont have to. All the other candidates understand the need for these secret, closed doors, behind the scenes negotiations in which the world is not privy, nor is opposition allowed to voice their obstructionist ways.
It is precisely this point that is being missed by everyone. Barak Obama is painting himself into a corner by saying his presidency will be so transparent that he will be unable to conduct any secret negotiations. As such he will find out when he is in office why no other candidate has said “they will conduct direct presidential negotiations with anyone and everyone.”
Im not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am simply pointing out his failed logic to placate the far left progressive base that is running his show.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Bushâ??s Middle East Record: â??Pure Calamityâ??Here’s a quick excerptBush’s Middle East Record: ‘Pure Calamity’ May 18th, 2008 by WILLIAM KERN Continuing with WORLDMEETS.US’ coverage of the global reaction to President Bush’s Middle East trip, Gilles Delafon of France’s Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien writes in part: “In this region, George Bush has failed as few American presidents before him. His diplomatic balance sheet is pure calamity – and his last tour of the Middle East this week was a reminder of it. … With him, the United States has definit [...]
Just so there is no misunderstanding, Obama has said repeatedly and firmly he will NOT negotiate with Hamas whom he has called a terrorist organization. What he has said is he would negotiate with Iran, a recognized United Nations state. There is no doubt that Iran has supported third party terrorists/freedom fighters just as has the US with it's support of the MEK, Contras etc. It's part of what nations do to protect and advance their interests.
Neocon,
If you are looking for failed logic in campaign speeches or Presidential addresses, they are everywhere , and everyone can be faulted.
For reasons of your own, you choose to focus only on Obama.
Another way to look at this, my way, is to shun making decision on the basis of short phrases, the video clip approabh, and to evaluate tthe excerpts in the context of an overall approach. and philosophical umbrella of politicians, including statements across a wide range of topics.
Using a different yardstick, leads me to very different conclusions.
For reasons of your own, you choose to focus only on Obama.
Because I endorse Hillary Clinton and this website is absolutely in love and adores Barak Obama.
The only way to chip away at his armor is to call into question his judgement. He is not qualified to lead this nation. That is the conclusion I have reached and I point to what I perceive as evidence to support my conclusions.
“into question his judgement. He is not qualified to lead this nation. That is the conclusion I have reached and I point to what I perceive as evidence to support my conclusions.”
——————————
So, you're just campaigning for your candidate, and you cherry-pick 'evidence'to support your choice.
I chose Obama, not because he is flawless, but because he represents what I care most about.
I don't support Obama, by knocking Hillary or claiming she's unfit.
That's the difference between us.
Clever.
However I never said he was unfit. I said he was not qualified to lead this nation. GWB is unfit. He wasn't qualified either.
Valid Criticism of perceived weaknesses are not knocking someone they are precisely what they are. The problem that all Obama supporters seem to have is they are very thin skinned. Any criticism of their candidate is considered unfair and unjustified.
As such they demand that:
We are not allowed to question him. Any question of his ability is unfair and we are knocking him and that makes us somehow dirty people.
I reject that. He is a POLITICIAN. He is asking for my Vote. I have every right to comb his words and his deeds and his actions with a fine tooth comb. NOW If I could just find any.