This posting is a rough translation of an article that I wrote for the Dutch daily Friesch Dagblad.

Four years ago, when American voters were able to choose between four more years with Bush jr. and the unknown alternative which John Kerry offered, I wrote that Kerry’s election would probably be better for Israel and the Palestinians than the re-election of George W. Bush. The main basis for my assumption was the fact that at that moment ( August 2004 ) the deadlock of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had only one variable which was not hopelessly and rigidly stuck: the American presidency. Since then both Israel and the Palestinians got new leaders, but few people will tell you with a straight face that, leader-wise, compared to four years ago any of the two parties is better off today. No Israeli-Palestinian peace plan can succeed without a minimum of mutual trust and a real intention towards peace on both sides of the conflict. Nevertheless, in order to bring about a true peace process and to make it succeed, an input from outside is crucial. Not unlike four years ago, we should not expect any surprising peace-input from either Russia or the United Nations. The European Union still can play a limited, mediating role, but the EU remains too divided for it to conceive – let alone carry out – a balanced, credible and decisive vision regarding Israel-Palestine. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun. America still is the most important and influential outsider in the region. The foreign policy of the next President of the United States will (continue to) influence and/or determine the lives of Palestinians, Israelis and other nations in the Middle East. (more…)

The United States Senate Intelligence Committee released a report Thursday about the mistakes that lead up to the war in Iraq. Many progressives have claimed in recent years that US President George W. Bush ‘lied’ to get the people to support a war. Conservatives, on the other hand, have argued that not Bush, but faulty intelligence was and is to blame for certain misinformation. The report shows that the leftist mantra “Bush lied, people died” is not correct, but it also concludes that Bush and his allies did most certainly cherrypick intelligence to make their case for war. (more…)

When I was at the Houston Energy Summit earlier this year the theme that ran the length and breadth of every presentation made was that of energy security.  While the oil supply and pricing problems I’ve written about recently have not gone unnoticed in Congress, no concrete action has emerged from that body. Worse, Tom Friedman says that President Bush has not done any better.

(more…)

Politics is exactly what Barack Obama and others on the left are playing at when they protest, overmuch, that President Bush attacked the presumptive Democratic nominee when he delivered a much-needed slap in the face to those who would look away from terrorism rather than face the threat directly.

(more…)

President Bush’s interview with Politico’s Mike Allen goes a long way in confirming some of the positive character traits - steadfastness, faithful, determined - that I wrote about yesterday.  It also highlights some of negatives as well.  On balance it wasn’t a bad attempt at making Bush’s public image more palatable, something Republican candidates clearly need given that they’ve suffered some unfortunate defeats in recent months, most recently in Mississippi.

(more…)

US President George W. Bush arrived in Israel earlier today, to kick off his tour through the Middle East. He will stay in this part of the world for five days, and he’ll visit three countries. His visit coincides with the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel; a major issue on his agenda is, of course, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world). (more…)

You know, there was a time when Presidents lied about this kind of thing. Plausible deniability it’s called, if I’m not mistaken. Not so George W. Bush, the man knows no shame when it comes to torture: (more…)

Vanity Fair has what could potentially be a bombshell up. According to VF, the United States provoked a civil war in Palestine, thinking that Fatah would win it. (more…)

Although I agree that George W. Bush hasn’t exactly been one of the best presidents in US history, or even modern history at that, I find this to be a gross exaggeration: “after the last seven long years that this son of the Texas oil patch really didn’t know what hit him, still doesn’t know what hit him and still won’t know what hit him when he heads home one year hence to his ranch to search among the scrub brush for his squandered legacy.” (more…)

In his last state of the union address, US President George W. Bush emphasized spending and tax cuts. He argued that the economy needs a boost and that, to accomplish this asap, Congress should approve the bipartisan stimulus package. More than anything, though, he talked about keeping taxes low, making the Bush Tax cuts permanent and he opened the attack on earmarks. (more…)

The Center for Public Integrity concludes in a recent study that the Bush administration deliberately lied about Iraq, in order to get public support for war. (more…)

Below the fold follows a 30 minute video of US President George W. Bush being interviewed for / by MSNBC. He talked about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East in general, and so on. Quite an interesting interview.

I can’t say that I agree with Bush on his views on Israel/Palestine, I’m less “optimistic” about it all, but you have to appreciate his efforts. One thing’s clear: when you watch this interview it becomes clear that Bush has grown as a president. A cynic would say that he’s now ready to become president. (more…)

Obviously the title of this post is a slight exaggeration, but I have to say that Abbas will probably be very happy with George W. Bush right now, while Israelis may think “weren’t you our friend?”

President Bush said Thursday that Palestinian refugees should receive compensation for the loss of homes they fled or were forced to flee during the establishment of Israel and declared that there should be an end to Israel’s “occupation” of lands seized in war four decades ago. (more…)

US President George W. Bush has been criticized by liberals and Europeans for being cold, and egotistical… But he’s done more to fight AIDS than any other President. (more…)

If anyone’s still wondering whether the NYT’s editorial board is extremely liberal or not, well, I’d say just read this editorial.

Although I agree with the Times on a few issues, I can’t help but think “yeah, yeah. Yeah.” to myself when reading the article. (more…)

Robert Novak says yes:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto followed two months of urgent pleas to the State Department by her representatives for better protection. The U.S. reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would not let anything happen to her. (more…)

Today I’m happy to publish the sixth guest post of this week: it’s Rick Moran with “Release of Iran NIE a Remarkable Testament to American Exceptionalism.” (more…)

The Washington Post has an article up arguing that the latest NIE assessment “not only undercut the administration’s alarming rhetoric over Iran’s nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush’s effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.” In other words: it’s a mighty blow to Bush’s Iran policy. (more…)

Earlier today US President George W. Bush blasted Democrats for withholding funds for the Iraq War / the War on Terrorism. “There are some in Congress who want to withhold this funding because they want to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders,” he said.

He went on to say that “instead of listening to the judgment of General Petreaus” these lawmakers are “threatening to withhold money he needs… unless they can mandate an arbitrary date of withdrawal.” (more…)

Well, that was quite a traffic surge, thanks mostly to Andrew Sullivan. With it came many comments and e-mails and related blog posts, surprisingly many thinking that I had argued that excessive drinking would probably yield better policy results. Nonsense of course, the crux of putting Bush and Churchill together was to underline that alcohol, either using it or teetotalling, does not play a role in shaping a political career and a lasting legacy. In fact the comparison of these two leaders made it very clear as one commenter succinctly put it that leadership is defined above all by experience and cerebral capabilities:

Churchill was widely read and wrote brilliantly. He had a first class brain that alcohol could not extinguish.

What actually struck me when I wrote the post was that there are very divergent attitudes towards drinking when you compare America and Europe. In North America alcohol is often seen as a ‘drug’, something for which there is a physical ‘need’ and thus something that needs to be ‘controlled’. Many a Hollywood star is shipped off into rehab followed by desperate statements about their troubled relationship with the bottle. And that for consumption levels that would only put you in the ranks of an average social drinker in most of continental Europe. Britain - as I can attest to having spent a few years working and drinking in London – is in a league all of its own when it comes to booze.

Yet the puritan attitudes that came to define the warped attitudes to alcohol-consumption in the US and Canada have given us prohibition and that statist scourge, government-run liquor distribution. It has also informed George Bush’s complex relationship with the bottle where apparently Laura served him notice after a few beers celebrating his 40^th birthday. It was a surprise that this history never really unraveled his first presidential campaign, but its enduring importance should not be underestimated: his years of abstention are now repurposed as evidence of sound decisionmaking in a time of war.

NOTE: Remember this imbibed European leader?

As we ‘re inundated with quotes from Robert Draper’s revealing book on Bush, I kind of enjoyed this one, on drinking:

Discussing his past battles with alcohol, he says he would never be able to make decision on war if he was still drinking.

“Exercise helps. And I think prayer helps,” he says. “I wouldn’t be President if I kept drinking. You can get sloppy, can’t make decisions. It clouds your reason, absolutely.”

Wasn’t the War on Terror modeled after the struggle against Nazism? And didn’t Sir Winston Churchill make a resounding re-entry in the daily lexicon after the events of 9/11? What would the world have looked like if Sir Winston had applied the same rigor to his alcohol consumption as GWB? Here’s a clue:

His drinking habits were admirably fetishistic - preferably Pol Roger, served at precisely the right temperature (he was delighted when the gift of a refrigerator from Beaverbrook in 1926 obviated the need to dilute it with ice) and interspersed with much brandy and port.

The papers of Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s lend-lease administrator, contain several good examples of the war leader’s zealous interest in his own consumption. For instance, Hopkins describes finding Churchill in January 1943 ‘in bed in his customary pink robe, and having, of all things, a bottle of wine for breakfast’. Viscount Alanbrooke made the same observation, and Eden’s diary mentions Churchill taking a ’stiff whiskey and soda, at 8.45 a.m’.

A Foreign Office official described a dinner with Churchill as ,a varied and noble procession of wines with which I could not keep pace - champagne, port, brandy, Cointreau: Winston drank a good deal of all, and ended with two glasses of whisky and soda.’

Cheers.

Crossposted on Peaktalk