I really don’t see how the press can continue to replay the Joe Wilson story as though it were true history. Christopher Hitchens assembles the case very clearly in his last two Slate articles. For those who want to review the case, a large number of background resource links are included in the two articles. The most recent article from 25 July:
Now that Joseph and Valerie Wilson’s fantasies of having been persecuted by high officials in the administration have been so thoroughly dispelled by Robert Novak (and now that it seems the prosecutor has determined that there was no breach of the relevant laws to begin with), we may return to the more important original question. Was there good reason to suppose that Iraqi envoys visited Niger in search of “yellowcake” uranium ore?
[…]
This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the “anti-war” movement—the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission—are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson’s utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed “outing” was inadvertently performed by Wilson’s admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one’s own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the “Plamegate” farce has garnered.
The previous article The End of the Affair: Novak exonerates the Bushies in the Plame case is also available as a podcast:
Robert Novak’s July 12 column and his appearance on Meet the Press Sunday night have dissolved any remaining doubt about the mad theory that the Bush administration “outed” Ms. Valerie Plame as revenge for her husband’s refusal to confirm the report by British intelligence that Iraqi officials had visited Niger in search of uranium. To summarize, we now know that:
1. Novak was never approached by any administration officials but approached them instead.
2. He was never told the name Plame but discovered it from Who’s Who in America, which contained it in Joseph Wilson’s entry.
3. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had all along known which sources had responded to Novak’s questions.
When one thinks of the oceans of ink and acres of paper that have been wasted on this mother of all nonstories, one wants to weep for the journalistic profession as well as for the trees. Well before Novak felt able to go public, he had said that his original source was not “a partisan gunslinger,” which by any reasonable definition means that he was consciously excluding the names of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. And how likely was it anyway that either man, seeking to revenge himself on Joseph Wilson, would go to a columnist who is known to be one of Wilson’s admirers (praise for him and his career was a central theme in the original 2003 article), is friendly with the CIA, and is furthermore known as a staunch and consistent foe of the administration’s intervention in Iraq? The whole concept was nonsense on its face.
As Novak says, the original question was: How did a man publicly critical of the Bush policy get the CIA’s nomination for a mission to Niger? When he asked this question of his first source, he was told in effect, “That’s easy. His wife works there and recommended him for the trip.” This has since been confirmed by the report of the Senate intelligence committee, which quotes a memo from Valerie Plame making the recommendation in so many words (on the bizarre grounds that Wilson already enjoyed warm relations with the people he would supposedly be investigating at the Niger Ministry of Mines).
Lesson No. 1: Lower tax rates lead to a more prosperous economy. According to the Treasury analysis, a permanent extension of the recent tax cuts leads to a long-run increase in the capital stock of 2.3%, and a long-run increase in GNP of 0.7%.
What can we expect if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent? Harvard economist Greg Mankiw comments in his Wall Street Journal op-ed [published in full on his blog]. Treasury’s Mid-Session budget review is the first case I know of utilizing dynamic analysis of tax policy [directed by Bush in the 2007 budget].
Does tax relief mean more economic growth? Many people believe the answer is yes, and now they get strong support from the staff of the U.S. Treasury.
Most press reports on the Mid-Session Review of the federal budget, released by the Bush administration a couple of weeks ago, focused on the good news about expanding tax revenues and the shrinking budget deficit. But for tax-policy geeks, the most intriguing part of the report was an easily overlooked box on page 3: “A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President’s Tax Relief.” Over the past six months, the Treasury Department staff has been studying the dynamic effects of tax cuts on the economy. The results of this analysis, previewed in this box, were released yesterday in more complete form (available at http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/).
A bit of background: Most official analysis of tax policy is based on what economists call “static assumptions.” While many microeconomic behavioral responses are included, the future path of macroeconomic variables such as the capital stock and GNP are assumed to stay the same, regardless of tax policy. This approach is not realistic, but it has been the tradition in tax analysis mainly because it is simple and convenient.
In his 2007 budget, President Bush directed the Treasury staff to develop a dynamic analysis of tax policy, and we are now reaping the fruits of those efforts. The staff uses a model that does not consider the short-run effects of tax policy on the business cycle, but instead focuses on its longer run effects on economic growth through the incentives to work, save and invest, and to allocate capital among competing uses.
The Treasury report describes what will happen to the economy if the tax relief of the past few years is made permanent, compared to the alternative scenario of reverting back to the tax code as it was in 2000. Specifically, the report analyzes the effects of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains, the effects of lower taxes on ordinary income, and the extension of other tax cuts, including the new 10% bracket, the expanded child credit and marriage-penalty relief. Here are three main lessons.
Lesson No. 1: Lower tax rates lead to a more prosperous economy.
According to the Treasury analysis, a permanent extension of the recent tax cuts leads to a long-run increase in the capital stock of 2.3%, and a long-run increase in GNP of 0.7%. In today’s economy, such a GNP expansion would mean an extra $90 billion a year that the nation can spend on consumer goods to raise living standards, or capital goods to maintain prosperity. More than two-thirds of this expansion occurs within 10 years.
Lesson No 2: Not all taxes are created equal for purposes of promoting growth.
Some tax rate reductions have a profound impact on incentives and economic growth, while others have minimal or even adverse effects. The Treasury staff reports particularly large bang-for-the-buck from the reductions in dividends and capital-gains taxes. Even though these tax cuts account for less than 20% of the static revenue loss from permanent tax relief, they produce more than half of the long-run growth.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are the tax reductions from the 10% bracket, child credit and marriage-penalty relief. These tax cuts put money in people’s pockets when, during the recent recession, the economy needed a short-run boost to aggregate demand. They also fulfill other objectives, such as making the tax system more progressive. But they illustrate that not all tax cuts promote long-run growth. Treasury estimates that without the tax reductions from the 10% bracket, child credit and marriage-penalty relief, the long-run increase in GNP would be larger — 1.1% rather than 0.7%.
Lesson No 3: How tax relief is financed is crucial for its economic impact.
Like all of us, the government eventually has to pay its bills. In technical terms, the government faces an intertemporal budget constraint that ties the present value of government spending to the present value of tax revenue. This means that when taxes are cut, other offsetting adjustments are required to make the numbers add up.
The Treasury’s main analysis assumes that lower tax revenue will over time be accompanied by reduced spending on government consumption. But the report also shows what happens if spending cuts are not forthcoming. In this alternative scenario, a permanent extension of recent tax relief is assumed to lead to an eventual increase in income taxes.
The results are strikingly different. Instead of increasing by 0.7% in the long run, GNP now falls by 0.9%. Tax relief is good for growth, but only if the tax reductions are financed by spending restraint. One exception: Lower taxes on dividends and capital gains promote growth, even if they require higher income taxes.
These Treasury results are sure to spark debate and further research. While the Treasury report is not the last word on dynamic analysis, it is a big step toward a more realistic view of tax policy.
Such projections are complex and completely dependent upon a plethora of assumptions. The conclusions make sense to me, but I leave it to the reader to study the report [PDF] and other economists’ interpretations. One source for more commentary is the also-recommended Econbrowser by Menzie Chinn.
If you are looking for an answer to the title question, I highly recommend this speculation by Richard Fernandez. It is not fact, but it is informed and thoughtful speculation:
I am going to write a completely speculative piece on the fighting in Lebanon. It’s born of a need to make sense of events which on the face of it are incomprehensible, though by so doing the post detaches itself from verifiable fact. The reader is warned. Read on if you wish for entertainment but beware that what follows is hypothesis, there aren’t even going to be hyperlinks for reference.
The first question that must be answered in divining IDF intentions in Lebanon is what the center of gravity of the Hezbollah is, because that is what the IDF must be aiming to destroy. The two obvious ones are Hezbollah’s ability to influence the Lebanese government and the motor of that influence — the military force that Hezbollah maintains in the south. A step down we can ask, what is the most important component of Hezbollah’s power in the south? Again the answer is easy. It is the Hezbollah cadres themselves. Hezbollah’s most precious possession isn’t Katyushas, long-range rockets, night vision goggles or antitank missiles or electronic equipment. It is the trained core of its military force. Equipment can be replaced but Hezbollah’s cadres represent an expensive, almost irreplaceable investment. In them resides the organizational knowledge of Nasrallah’s organization. It embodies man-decades of operational experience against Israel. Rockets can be replaced. The stars of Hezbollah’s operational force are less expendable.
[…]
The next chimera being dangled before Nasrallah is the idea that Israel is only aiming to establish some buffer zone of about 15 miles in width. It’s the conventional wisdom and maybe Nasrallah hopes it’s true. But already doubt is apparently creeping into his soul. Sixty or more Lebanese have reportedly been arrested as Israeli spies in Beirut. The Hezbollah see them everywhere. Although subsequently denied, there were reports that Nasrallah had sought refuge in the Iranian embassy. In the meantime Ahmadinehjad and Assad are ceaselessly calling for ceasefires. Everywhere the word “ceasefire” is heard. But never from Israel. Maybe somewhere in his mind Nasrallah’s realized that the IDF isn’t after some buffer zone: they are after him and his cadre. His cadre they already have: they are fighting to keep real estate they are doomed to lose. Nasrallah himself they may have by and by. But there may be worse to come. Whether accidental or not, the IDF attack on Kiyam raises the specter that it will operate eastward against the Bekaa valley and perhaps eventually against the Beirut-Damascus highway. That would cut off supplies from Syria to his men in the south and to his command element in Damascus. Then where would Nasrallah’s influence over Lebanese politics be? And how should he fare against his former adversaries in the recently concluded Civil War? With the onus of all the ruination he has visited upon Lebanon upon him and his forces in stuck in a southern front against the IDF he may find it hard to cut the swath he once did in government circles.
See also the update.
It’s an education project, not a laptop project — Nicholas Negroponte
Negroponte says the foundation plans to begin manufacturing late 2006, early 2007 - when they have prepaid orders for the first one million laptops. Nigeria appears to have placed the first order - though it isn’t clear whether the order is for $1 million or for one million laptops.
From the Wiki, an excellent place to explore the $100 laptop project in depth:
This is the wiki for the One Laptop per Child association. The mission of this non-profit association is to develop a low-cost laptop—the “$100 Laptop”—a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world’s children. Our goal is to provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment, and express themselves.
Why do children in developing nations need laptops? Laptops are both a window and a tool: a window into the world and a tool with which to think. They are a wonderful way for all children to learn learning through independent interaction and exploration.
From the FAQ:
How is it possible to get the cost so low?
* First, by dramatically lowering the cost of the display. The first-generation machine will have a novel, dual-mode display that represents improvements to the LCD displays commonly found in inexpensive DVD players. These displays can be used in high-resolution black and white in bright sunlight—all at a cost of approximately $35.
* Second, we will get the fat out of the systems. Today’s laptops have become obese. Two-thirds of their software is used to manage the other third, which mostly does the same functions nine different ways.
* Third, we will market the laptops in very large numbers (millions), directly to ministries of education, which can distribute them like textbooks.
Why is it important for each child to have a computer? What’s wrong with community-access centers?
One does not think of community pencils—kids have their own. They are tools to think with, sufficiently inexpensive to be used for work and play, drawing, writing, and mathematics. A computer can be the same, but far more powerful. Furthermore, there are many reasons it is important for a child to own something—like a football, doll, or book—not the least of which being that these belongings will be well-maintained through love and care.
What about connectivity? Aren’t telecommunications services expensive in the developing world?
When these machines pop out of the box, they will make a mesh network of their own, peer-to-peer. This is something initially developed at MIT and the Media Lab. We are also exploring ways to connect them to the backbone of the Internet at very low cost.
What can a $1000 laptop do that the $100 version can’t?
Not much. The plan is for the $100 Laptop to do almost everything. What it will not do is store a massive amount of data.
Zeev Avrahami is a 37-year-old freelance journalist who lives in New York City and writes for the Israeli daily Haaretz. Of Iranian descent, he was born on the Sinai Peninsula before his family was expelled.
A former Israeli anti-war activist, here is Avrahami’s revised view of Israel’s situation:
In the 1990s, Israelis sincerely thought that peace was just around the corner. Now, the Middle East is torn apart by war. A former Israeli peace activist explains why he has laid down his olive branch and is prepared to grab for his rifle.
Every time war footage from Lebanon flickers across the flat screen television in my apartment on the 30th floor of a high-rise in mid-town Manhattan, I am overwhelmed by a deep feeling of sadness. When I scan through the news on the Internet each morning, I’m overtaken by anger. The result is confusion: I go to sleep at night thinking I am a dove and wake up in the morning to find out I am a hawk.
It’s gotten so bad that I have even started missing Ariel Sharon, the former prime minister of Israel who has been lying in a coma for the past six months. I find myself writing screenplays in my mind: Sharon wakes up, stares at the TV screen, and sees Israel invading Lebanon. Sharon, I think, would presume he has landed in hell where he is damned to relive the most dreadful moments of his political career.
The very fact that I am reminiscing about Sharon is shocking — many people of my generation can’t stand him. The man led Israel into its traumatic “optional war” of 1982 when we invaded Lebanon — an experience that left behind numerous scars on the Israeli population, both physical and psychological. The soldiers who fought in southern Lebanon then did not understand why they where there; why they lost their friends, their youth and their innocence; why they had to fight against an unknown enemy and patrol the streets of Lebanese cities — passing by civilians who were drinking coffee and playing backgammon in the cafes.
Israel’s Vietnam
The war in Lebanon 24 years ago turned Israel upside down: A high-ranking officer refused his orders to invade Beirut and thousands of Israelis protested against the war while soldiers were still fighting and dying. After years of being the world’s darlings, international public opinion suddenly turned against us. And then there were the horrors of Sabra and Shatila. There were no glorious photo albums after this war, no heroes. It was Israel’s Vietnam.
I didn’t fight in the Lebanon war, though I spent some of my army service guarding the border and operating inside it. But when I joined the Israeli army in November 1987, I had to deal with one of its side effects: Even as Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was expelled to Algeria, Israel faced resistance from within the occupied Palestinian Territories. The first Intifada began a month after I was drafted. At that point, when I had just joined the army, I was filled with a sense of mission to continue the heritage of Israeli civilians who join the army for three years at the age of 18 to protect the country from its enemies.
But when I got deployed to Gaza and Nablus, fighting an unknown enemy, patrolling streets where, again, civilians drank their tea and played backgammon in cafés, my conviction was shaken. I became confused about who the good guys were and who were the bad. When I finished my mandatory service, I decided never again to be a soldier. When I was called up from the reserves and ordered back to Gaza, I refused and became an outspoken and active opponent of the Israeli occupation. I spent a total of 45 days in military prison for my refusal to serve.
Fighting against our parents’ generation
The growing opposition of my generation was our first major contribution to shaping Israeli society and to adding the next layer to our young nation. The first generation of Israelis built the country, fought its war of independence and developed the infrastructure of a nation-state. The second generation fought glorious wars helping establish a Jewish post-Holocaust identity. We, who were born in the mid-1960s and the beginning of the 70s, called for the normalization of Israel. We wanted Israel to become a country like any other; we wanted borders, both geographical and ethical. The war we fought was the one against the convictions of our parents’ generation.
As my generation matured — and began taking its place in the Israeli economic, cultural and political establishment — we triggered a great change in Israeli public opinion. Ours was the generation that pushed — both with votes and with lifestyle — for talks with the Palestinians and for peace agreements with Arafat and Jordan. The young generation that came after us instigated the pull-out from Lebanon in 2000, and pushed for a final agreement with the Palestinians. In the last election, for the first time in Israeli history, three politicians who did not rise up through the ranks of the Israeli army were elected to our government’s highest posts: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had been the mayor of Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Zipi Livni is a lawyer and Defense Minister Amir Peretz was a union leader. We wanted our government to focus on welfare issues, invest in education and civil rights.
Deep down, of course, we knew that was wishful thinking. My generation, after all — which had largely missed the last heroic war in 1967 and which was born into the reality of Israel as an occupier — also helped make Ariel Sharon prime minister in 2001. Sharon’s reputation then was not only stained by the Lebanon war, but he was also the living symbol for the settlement project; it was Sharon, as minister of infrastructure and agriculture, who devoted huge amounts of money to the expansion of the settlements. His election signalled a change: There was a waning belief that peace with the Palestinians was possible and a desire for a strong leader as Israel braced for the next war.
A betrayal and a huge defeat
Like an experienced shepherd, Sharon sensed exactly which way the herd wanted to go. After his election, he led Israel into confrontation with the Palestinians — the Second Intifada. He also forced Israelis to take the next step, that of turning their backs on their Palestinian neighbors. For my generation, this represented a huge defeat, and we felt betrayed when the younger generation agreed to Sharon’s policy. It is this betrayal — and this complete rejection of the idea of peace with the Palestinians — which fills me with sadness when I follow the news today.
The anger, though, is not far behind. When the rockets from Gaza began falling on southern Israel, my former peace activism became but a distant memory. The recent killings and kidnappings of soldiers on the Gaza and Lebanese borders sent us back to our past and into our closets: Once again, we Israelis are looking for our uniforms.
Today, I am convinced that Israel is fighting a justified war. Far from being an “optional war,” this conflict was forced upon us. There is a feeling that every positive step taken in recent years has been answered by punishment. Now we are prepared to do whatever it takes to turn Israel into a safe place, even if this means invading Lebanon once again. We also want to sip coffee and play backgammon. We’ve had enough of rockets from the north and south and suicide bombers from everywhere. We also want to lead a normal life, just like the people in New York, Berlin or Rome who don’t have to look up every time a stranger enters their favorite cafe.
Praying for hummus, getting Hamas
We pulled out of Gaza and we have no desire to be pulled back in. We want to go to work, study, raise a family, enjoy the beach, and eat hummus as we watch with delight how the Palestinians use the money they get from around the world to build their own infrastructure, to create jobs allowing them to go to the beach, raise families, and eat hummus. We prayed for hummus and instead we got Hamas.
I am bothered by the high Lebanese death toll as are most Israelis, but we must also remember that Hezbollah set the tone for this conflict when it asked for hundreds of people in exchange for one Israeli soldier. This war was declared against us and against the Western world. With oil prices rising daily, it’s an economic war. With anger still lingering after the Muhammad cartoons, it is a cultural war. Most of all, though, it is a war against a progressive world, and Israel has turned back the clock 24 years to fight it.
I too am turning back the clock. Eighteen years after finishing my military service — almost two decades after swearing that I would never again wear a uniform — I called the Israeli consulate in New York and gave them my phone number. If the army needed me, I told them, I would be the first on a plane back to Israel. And Sharon, of course, has still not woken from his coma. But I miss him.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former New York Times Middle East Correspondent and Wall Street Journal Energy Editor for 25 years, is a freelance writer based in New York City and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
With Israel entering its fourth week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks. The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends:
Dear Palestinian Arab brethren:
The war with Israel is over.
You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children.
We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the “eternal struggle” with Israel.
Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness.
At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan. It isn’t going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends.
You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem. You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation. Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider “must-reading”. HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here.
Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win.
In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day.
What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world’s have-nots?
We, your Arab brothers, have moved on.
Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq, frankly could not care less about what happens to you.
Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine, even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab.
Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours, Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods — more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives — while your children played in the sewers of Gaza.
The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?
Economist Greg Manikw, one of our favorite sources:
MIT economist Abhijit Banerjee has a good article on foreign aid. Princeton economist Angus Deaton responds. (Thanks to Tyler Cowen for the pointer.)
Max Boot offers another useful history lesson:
Well, then, why on earth are so many pundits blaming President Bush for the current mess in the Middle East? A typical example comes from fellow Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks, who writes: “The Bush administration’s tunnel-vision approach to foreign policy has pushed the U.S. and the world into a devastating tailspin of conflict without end….We promised to make the world safer, but we’ve turned it into a tinderbox.”
We’ve turned the world into a tinderbox? Wasn’t it a tinderbox long before 2001? And why is the United States, much less Bush, responsible for every conflagration?
Iran was developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism long before Bush came into office. Critics attack him for not being diplomatic enough with Tehran, but in fact he has been supportive of the efforts of France, Germany and Britain to strike a deal. More recently, his secretary of State has offered to talk to Tehran directly. So keen is the Iranian government for such talks that it hasn’t deigned to reply to the U.S. offer.
Bush hasn’t exactly been a warmonger when it comes to Iran’s ally, Syria, either. Even as Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was turning his country into a staging ground for the Iraqi insurgency, the Bush administration repeatedly sent envoys to Damascus in an attempt to negotiate. Far from being interested in a deal, Assad was only emboldened into thinking that he would suffer no consequences for his hostile acts.
Both Iran and Syria have continued backing Hamas and Hezbollah, but this is hardly a new problem; it dates to the Reagan presidency. Critics suggest that these terrorist groups have gotten more powerful because of Bush’s push for democracy. Hamas, after all, now runs the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah is part of a coalition government in Lebanon. But their power doesn’t derive from their political positions; it comes from their militias, which remain outside the democratic process. Hamas was attacking Israel even when it was in opposition. So, for that matter, was the party it replaced — Yasser Arafat’s Fatah.
ARAFAT, you may recall, launched a terrorist onslaught against Israel in 2000, when President Clinton was still in office. Ariel Sharon, with Bush’s backing, managed to defeat the suicide bombers through a combination of measures defensive (the West Bank barrier) and offensive (targeted killings of terrorist bigwigs). This paved the way for an Israeli pullout from Gaza, exactly what “peace processors” had wanted all along.
This hasn’t exactly won the goodwill of Palestinian militants, but, if you’re a typical liberal critic, you can hardly blame Bush for encouraging Israeli concessions.
But surely, you say, Bush has made things worse in Iraq. Admittedly, the situation there is grim. But is it more grim than when Hussein was invading his neighbors and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people? Or when the U.S. was enforcing sanctions that killed an estimated 60,000 babies a year? Many now claim that Hussein was a bulwark against Iranian adventurism, but Iranian-backed terrorists were at least as active in the 1980s (when they grabbed dozens of Western hostages in Lebanon and blew up the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut) as they are today.
Critics are right that Bush hasn’t transformed the Middle East into a bastion of peace, love and harmony. But he never promised to work miracles; he has consistently spoken of our current struggle as a generational challenge — the Long War. Sure, he could have done more to help win the war. But there is no reason to think that the critics’ preferred approach — more diplomatic blather, more international confabs, more concessions to the terror-mongers — would have produced any better results. In any case, to suggest that his policies are the cause of today’s woes, rather than a reaction to them, reveals a stunning historical amnesia.
From the 
Latest Comments
RSS