Bush's peace in the Middle East?

I don't know about you, but I'm wondering whatever happened to that peace-in-the-Middle East promise President Bush gave us last year. About the exact opposite has occurred, which is a common theme of the Bush presidency. matfst comments on my post yesterday asking about the ongoing attack on Gaza by the Israelis -- and what role the Bush Administration is playing.

While indirect, the Bush administration earns blame here in two primary areas:

1. Absolutely no legitimacy as a leader in international affairs/events
2. Allowing like-minded people and governments to do whatever they desire as his presidency is winding down.

I know I laughed out loud when I heard Bush's promise to bring peace to the Middle East by the time he left office. The naïveté of this president, though, is no laughing matter. I don't know if he really believed he could do in a year's time what no one has done in history or if it was another one of his "if I say it, it must be true" moments. Steven Colbert called this "truthiness."

The US had a golden opportunity after 9/11 to lead a world sympathetic to us after the attacks (and trying to find a way to negotiate a one-superpower world following the Cold War). Even the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, "We are all Americans." But Bush, Cheney, et al, rejected any help from abroad, instead deciding to forge ahead on our own. While starting down the right path, we ended up stumbling into Iraq and for the past 8 years destroying any sense of world leadership we once had to offer. Instead, we are the ones saying it is OK to overreact and strike at will whomever you want, regardless of the reason or of the firepower of the enemy. We say it is OK to torture, that the Geneva Conventions are outdated and don't apply to us.

That is only a part of the Bush World we helped to create, and the Israelis are taking full advantage of it -- and doing it before Barack Obama takes office. As NPR reported last week, George Bisharat, a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said:

"Certainly, the Bush administration is one that the Israeli government feels comfortable with, realizes is not likely to face much constraint with. And so, I think, one of the reasons for doing this before the incoming Obama administration is because of that sense of freedom and comfort with the Bush administration."

Although Obama has consistently sided with Israel during his career and campaign, the Israelis know that with Bush, they get the go-ahead to do whatever it deems necessary. In this case, it is to blow away hundreds of Gazans, bomb and invade one of the poorest regions in the world, all because several rockets were fired from an unknown origin, and killing 4 Israelis. Now, the rocket fire is wrong, but what is right about using a bazooka to kill a fly? There has to be another way.

We saw this same phenomenom -- getting what you can while Bush is in office -- from Big Oil. As prices soared to $4 a gallon, the oil industry was making its largest profits. Now as it is in the $1.50 range, we all celebrate the "low" price. Frankly, it never should have gotten over $2, but Bush's Big Oilmen knew this was the last gasp chance to get such a profit, and boy did they jump on it. Now, with Obama coming in, prices have settled to where they should have been all along.

Thus, we live in a world created by a Bush Administration intent on helping its big business friends and giving governments carte-blanche to do whatever appropriate to fight what it claims as "terror." I think the election was a repudiation of this "world" and a hope that we can move toward something much more realistic and fair.

Note: Now that you've read my post today, take 5 minutes to read Frank Rich's column today in the NYT. And later, give Bob Hebert's Add Up The Damage column from a few days ago a read. These earn an "AMEN."