Can Bush Get That Treaty?

David, are you hearing yourself? You're merely repeating talking points, not responding to what I said. I was talking about the Annapolis Summit. When I said that the American people and indeed much of the world has given Bush's tenure in office incredibly low ratings, I was not ranting, I was reflecting documented fact. If you want to believe that history will be kind to this president, be my guest. It doesn't look that way to me, and to the almost 80% of Americans who think this country has been taken in a wrong direction. The point of my previous post was to emphasize my not unreasonable position that Bush is looking to get a signed peace treaty between Palestinian West Bank Arabs and Israel as his much needed diplomatic triumph, his "Oscar Award" moment. Solve that mess -- and you smell like roses. David, I hope he solves it. You know my affection for Israel and my wish that it experience a thousand years of peace. Let the whole region prosper (not just the oil men). With that in mind, I hope Bush can do something diplomatically to leave office smelling like roses. I don't hate the man. But seven months after Annapolis I question his preparation. He doesn't have much of a track record when it comes to preparation. Even though he has the power of the US behind him to push forward his efforts, he doesn't seem to have the intellectual competence to use that power effectively. [Seven years of evidence for that statement, David!] You say: "The administration's policies have squelched terror attempts on our soil, the surge has achieved a turnaround in Iraq, we are moving forward on increasing oil supply (to combat the price doubling since Democrats took control of Congress)." If all that were true, he'd be riding high in the polls. He'd be "The Man." McCain would say his name at every truck stop. Democrats would have lost in '06. And Obama would not be the candidate of big time "change." Sorry, David: the pulse of this country today is unforgiving toward the Bush residency. The consensus is, he's wasted our precious time, and he's leaving the next guy (Obama) with a big mess.

On Ira's Annapolis comments... It is another unattributed anti-Bush rant, this time lamenting mid-term ratings and Ira's opinion that there is a lack of accomplishments.

How about these accomplishments? The administration's policies have squelched terror attempts on our soil, the surge has achieved a turnaround in Iraq, we are moving forward on increasing oil supply (to combat the price doubling since Democrats took control of Congress).

Why does Ira hope so much that there is already a document prepared for the Annapolis attendees to sign? I am concerned about a rush to sign any document. Isn't it more important to draft a document only if and when we know there are reasonable terms achieved in the process?

Other Presidents have had low mid-term or exit approval ratings, which history later saw in better light. I admire Bush for taking bold stands to protect the US and Israel, even at his personal "approval" expense. That is integrity.

Annapolis Summit 7 months later

Pres. Bush is aware that the American people and indeed much of the world has given his tenure in office incredibly low ratings; he knows that he has not had a major world achievement to boast about in seven, going on eight years. This state of affairs explains his cajoling to get Arab countries to attend his Annapolis Summit on November 27, 2007. He needed a diplomatic triumph to counter-act his documented failures and many accusations of incompetence. He needed that trophy-triumph: the signing by Israel and Palestine of a peace treaty, a "historic" document that Mr. Bush believes will earn him a high place forever on the world stage of history. Seven months have gone by and still they haven't signed anything. Can he get them to sign this summer or into the early fall? The clock is ticking. Can he get them to sign before the next election? Does he even have a document ready for them to sign? I hope so. I hope that this time he's a little more prepared than he was with, say, his plan to conduct a war in Iraq...

Ira, you can list simple facts without making a meaningful statement. What does it mean that "it all happened on Bush's watch"? Blame him if you can show he was responsible, otherwise it is a baseless inference.

Oil prices are up largely because of global demand, as noted on CMM
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/17/markets/oil.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008061706)

• The issue really is global oil demand is growing at a reasonable pace and supply is still playing a catch up game," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore. ... Demand has appeared to ease in the U.S. and other rich nations but remains strong in China and parts of Asia, he said. ... Other factors supporting high oil prices included the European Union's plan Monday to impose new sanctions on Iran's oil and gas sectors to discourage it from developing nuclear weapons, he said.

Ira wrote:

Yesterday the guy in front of me at the Getty station was putting more than $65 worth of gas into his tank that cost $25 to fill when his car was new. Time to unload that SUV, Mister, I thought, and I felt bad for the guy. After all, when he bought his truck he didn't bargain for $4.00 gas.

My attitude changed when I saw his bumper sticker. I felt embarrassment, chagrin, a dash of admiration, sadness...but most of all perplexity. Is he that dense? Does he not see that the last eight years has been a debacle when it comes to American leadership at home and around the world -- with who knows what consequences? Just in the matter of his fill-up, was he not aware that the President of the US never once asked the Detroit manufacture of the grossly inefficient vehicle he was pouring money into to try for better mileage? How come you're not angry, mister? I wanted to ask him.

Judging by his bumper sticker, he wasn't angry at the president, and he would probably be more angry at me for sounding 'negative.' The bumper sticker said: "Thank You Mr. Bush for Keeping Us Safe."

.....

He's insulated himself from seeing the world. He'd probably tell me that we need to drill more and the price will come down. Could I say to him that the price wouldn't come down, that demand for gas will always rise to the supply? That if gas went down in price even temporarily we'd simply build bigger Hummers and jack it up again? Could he ever accept the idea that sometimes less is more? That maybe the way to alternative (and cleaner?) energy is to disengage from oil, and not keep chasing after it? And that we've had a president with no fire under him to revolutionize the way this country uses energy?

Guys, it's your turn: two against one.

--------------------

Mike responds:

You don't believe in logic, but trust feelings. You don't look for facts, but suggest a theory and then look for a sliver of coincidence. How can anything I say dissuade you?

-------------------

David adds

Maybe Ira's message is a start, for which I say thanks. I'm not excited about it, though it highlights several things clearly:

• how Ira's "analysis" does not need any factual data -- just personal opinions are needed,
• how previous authoritative explanations about the causes of oil prices are wasted efforts,
• how Ira refuses to acknowledge the successful squelching of terror attempts in the US -- let alone express some gratitude,
• and how any excuse is reason enough to start another anti-Bush tirade.

----------------

Ira comments:
Sorry, David, but it was all facts. The guy filling his SUV? $65. Fact. When his truck was new, it cost him $25 to fill it. Fact. It was a 2001 SUV: so it was bought around the time Bush assumed office -- and it was under the Bush watch that gas prices soared. It's a fact that Bush never urged automakers to make more fuel efficient cars.

You say the facts show Bush is not to blame for $4.00 gas, that it's all supply and demand. But the Saudis say supply is ample, that speculative run-ups are causing the problem, or that the weak US dollar is.

Point is: it all happened on Bush's watch. The Mets fired Willie Randolph. Is he to solely to blame for their lackluster season? Or for their collapse at the end of last season? Plenty of blame to go around, right? Plenty of "causes." Billy Wagner can't hold a late inning lead, for example. But the Mets fired Randolph. And that's a fact. It happened under his watch.