E Pluribus Unum

First, theocracy gains power in Iraq; now, terror group Hamas wins electoral majority in Palestinian elections. Thanks, Mr. President.

How in the holy Hell is Hamas winning Bush's fault?

Hadn't you heard, Rosemary? Toppling Saddam was going to send ripples of democracy through the Middle East: Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine....

Do you want me to go on?

Tell me you want me to go on, I'll be happy to.

"How in the holy Hell is Hamas winning Bush's fault?"

Mostly because his uncritically backing of Sharon's every crime further radicalizing the Palestinians. But, you have a point. If Hamas is a monster, Sharon is their Frankenstein.

radicalized

If Hamas is a monster, Sharon is their Frankenstein.

Now THAT'S a new one.

You know my response Shep -- where's the Palestinian Gandhi? If one showed up, they'd have their state by early next week.

But if the Israeli Gandhi showed up, they'd be swept into the sea before nightfall.

IJS.

"You know my response Shep -- where's the Palestinian Gandhi?"

Well, first I'd be forced to point out that Gandhi's aren't really very common, you know. Second, I'd ask how many generations all of the Palestinian people should suffer Israel's oppression for the lack of one?

But let me ask you, if no Gandhi had stepped forward in India, would that have made British colonialism morally upright?

Oh, and please save the "swept into the sea" rhetoric. You may believe that someone in the region beside Israel and the United States has that sort of power, I do not.

Shep,

Mostly because his uncritically backing of Sharon's every crime further radicalizing the Palestinians.

Further radicalized? Before Bush became POTUS the Pals strapped on bombs and blew up innocent Israelis on busses, in restaurants, at weddings, etc...and had a murderous thug terrorist as their annointed leader.

After Bush became POTUS the Pals strapped on bombs and blew up innocent Israelis on busses, in restaurants, at weddings, etc... and elected terrorists to be their leader.

So again I ask, further radicalized? How so my friend?

Oh, and please save the "swept into the sea" rhetoric. You may believe that someone in the region beside Israel and the United States has that sort of power, I do not.

Iran might. Syria maybe. The hearts are definitely willing, it's our job to make sure the flesh remains weak.

"So again I ask, further radicalized? How so my friend?"

Well, you might want to make your comparisons more specific. “Before Bush” Israelis were blowing up hotels in Jerusalem.

But they say a picture is worth a lot of typing I don’t have time to do:

Before Bush and Sharon.

After Bush and Sharon.

Get the picture?

"Iran might. Syria maybe."

Oh, you kids. One day, a looong time ago, Israel kicked Syria’s butt along with Egypt and Jordan. All at the same time.

I really don’t think that the balance of military might has fallen mightily against Israel since she became the region’s sole nuclear power and convincing the lone world superpower to be her bestest buddy.

Tell you what, if it will make you feel any better, if Israel ever faces that sort of existential threat, I’ll pick up a gun and go join in the defense myself. I don’t think I’d be alone.

Wow.

I've got a link too! (at end of comment)

But your own link provides some clarity.

"The second Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out at the end of September 2000 and is named after the Jerusalem mosque complex where the violence began.

Frustrations that years of the negotiation had failed to deliver a Palestinian state were intensified by the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000.

Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel's opposition, paid a visit to the site in East Jerusalem known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, and to Jews as Temple Mount, which houses the al-Aqsa mosque - and frustration boiled over into violence. "

The second Infitada began before Bush was even elected but I see that is a small and insignifanct detail when you try to blame Bush. Carry on ignoring the facts and you'd best hurry and go apply for that gun permit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#1987_onwards:_The_Intifadas

Rosemary, I didn’t blame Bush for the Intifada. I blamed Bush for slavishly supporting Sharon which led to the Palestinian people choosing Hamas to lead them.

You see, the sad truth that gives lie to the Republicans' new-found infatuation with (someone else’s) democracy, as well as their rhetoric about the infallibility of markets, is: people don’t always choose wisely.

But both Bush and Sharon had already proved that.

Shep:

You know what's amazing? That you and I can have such diametrically opposed views on Israel and yet we both dislike Bush's performance as President.

Bush's performance is an easier call, don't you think?

Yes.

And Sharon's unilateral pull-out from Gaza highlights Bush's stubborn adherance to failed policies all the more.

”And Sharon's unilateral pull-out from Gaza highlights Bush's stubborn adherance to failed policies all the more.”

It’s all he has.

The neocon obsession with Israel and Iraq, the Norquist “drown it in the bathtub” approach to (regulatory) government, and the Evangelicals’ “we'll tell you whom to marry, when to have children and what your children should learn about God” social engineering plan.

After that, they got nothing. Rather than to govern well, those ideologies are the administration’s reasons for being and its sustenance. Abandon any of them and the kook-coalition is done, game over.

We’re stuck with this debacle until we change the makeup of the congress or replace this president. Or both.