NYT: Bush’s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father

[DeepModem Mom]

Bush’s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: August 2, 2006

....The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Mr. Sharon had helped develop. But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 — six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond — the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel....

***

That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As the president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah — even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation — some advisers to the father are expressing deep unease with the Israel policies of the son....

***

Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role through the prism of the war on terror. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro-Israeli component of his conservative Republican base.

The first President Bush came to the Oval Office with long diplomatic experience, strong ties to Arab leaders and a realpolitik view that held the United States should pursue its own strategic interests, not high-minded goals like democracy, even if it meant negotiating with undemocratic regimes like Syria and Iran.

The current President Bush has practically cut off Syria and Iran, overlaying his fight against terrorism with the aim of creating what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls ”a new Middle East.” In allying himself so closely with Israel, he has departed not just from his father’s approach but also from those of all his recent predecessors, who saw themselves first and foremost as brokers in the region....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes, George II threatened to cut off funding. George III is a toadie....

who permits Israel to kick him around.

They just gave Secretary of State Condi a swift kick to the butt. 48 hours turned into seven hours.

Shortly after entering office, Sharon completely ignored Bush's requests. In order to save face and not have his directives ignored any more, Bush has stopped issuing any directives.

[Rose Siding]

2. The only thing he's "embracing" is war.

[savemefromdumbya]

3. Remember Cheney is really President

George does what Dick says which may be at odds with George's Dad

[badgervan]

4. The United States.... + One

In practical terms, we have become the United States of America and Israel. They sure get a disproportionate share of our tax dollars and military acumen. With the possible exception of England, what other country/ally comes even close to the amount of dollars and support that our government gives to Israel? Should we be backing them to the tune of a very possible World War III?

[beltanefauve]

5. The MSN

is still being WAY too kind to *:

"The first President Bush came to the Oval Office with long diplomatic experience, strong ties to Arab leaders and a realpolitik view that held the United States should pursue its own strategic interests, not high-minded goals like democracy, even if it meant negotiating with undemocratic regimes like Syria and Iran."

AS IF we're in the Middle East to establish Democracy! C'mon, NYT, get real!
:puffpiece:

[DeepModem Mom]

6. a.m. kick

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. USA wants a "NEW" Middle East - how 'bout the World wants a NEW "USA" ??

.
.
.

and lawdy knows

Most of the world would luv a different USA

think "neutered"

[Anakin Skywalker]

8. Second Bush is Born-Again, OK?

There's your difference.