Welcome to my tinfoil cap theater, showcasing the mental meanderings of me.
As you know, the civilized world is all in a titter over the current hostilities Israel and some of its neighbors are inflicting upon each other. We're all familiar with the routine by now - Hezbollah fires a few score missles into Israel, damaging buildings, injuring many, sometimes killing a few, and Israel reponds by blowing up an airport, major highway, sea port, apartment complex, killing dozens.
Most perplexing to the civilized world, though, is why, exactly, is President George W. Bush acting so decisively in not doing a damn thing to directly resolve the conflict?
Frankly, I don't know why this administration needs a president anymore since their playbook is so well known by now. I could be the quarterback for this team:
Page 16 - "Israel has a right to defend 'herself.'"
Page 12 - "<current strawman evil country> must reign in the terrorists"
Page 1 - "September the 11th..."
Yes Hezbollah started it, but given Israel's repeated, precision-guided responses, I'd say they've started it a lot more. All the while the civilized world is left wondering what it will take for the US to reign in Israel. Apparently that threshold has not yet been reached.
I was reading this post by James Zogby at Huffington Post and suddenly my tinfoil hat began buzzing as if I was chewing on it. Specifically, it was this:
"Letting Hizbollah's and Israel's pathologies play out runs the danger of greater escalation and unintended consequences like the tragic example that just occurred in Qana.
[..]
"What are they thinking at the White House? Are they thinking? And why are there not more voices being raised in opposition to their negligence? Where are the Democrats who seek to lead in 2008? Why have they not called for a ceasefire and negotiations leading to a resolution of this conflict before another Qana occurs?"
And then it hit me: Bush <cough>Rove</cough> is stalling cease fire negotiations in an effort to force the Democrats to take a position that can then be painted as anti-Israeli, while at the same time providing Republican fodder for the 'what a bunch of sissies the Dems are on terrorism' argument (that's on page 5 of the playbook, btw).
To my way of thinking, stalling cease-fire talks until "permanent peace" can be achieved (what an asinine argument that is by the way) is quite simply a trap for Democrats. I'm not suggesting that Dems should should avoid it by remaining idle. Rather they should disable the trap by framing the discussion within the context of the current administration's failures. Something to the effect of:
"Is the President suggesting that "temporary" peace, i.e. a ceasefire, is less desirable than war?"
"The President seems to think that "permanent" peace can be negotiated under a barrage of missles and mortar fire."
"President Bush should first lead Israel and Hezbollah to peace, and once that's ahieved, lead them into making it permanent."
As much as I despise Karl Rove for getting George W. Bush into the White House, no one can doubt his tenacity, cunning, and resourcefulness. He's a master at shining turds, or lobbing the unshinable ones at his opponents. I wouldn't put it past him to let Lebanon & Syria burn to the ground if it will help Republicans win elections this Fall.
We are witnessing the failed leadership of George W. Bush (again). Karl Rove has known great success by turning Bush's failures into Dem detriments. There is that potential here.