Without getting into the merit of the Israeli attacks on Hamas this week, I wanted to note that President Bush seems a little confused — again — about the administration’s line.
After some initial hesitation, the Bush administration criticized Israel’s action as counterproductive towards establishing a lasting peace in the region.
“We’re deeply troubled by this morning’s events in Gaza,” said Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, adding that all sides, including Israel, should now “exercise maximum restraint” and “do everything possible to avoid any further actions that would make more difficult the restoration of calm.”
Fine. So the Bush administration criticized the Israeli attacks and found them “deeply troubling.” That made sense until Bush decided that he wasn’t that troubled after all.
President Bush yesterday defended Israel’s “right to defend herself from terror,” one day after a spokesman said the administration was “deeply troubled” by the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin and concerned it could derail efforts to jump-start the peace process.
So, who’s right? Bush’s White House or Bush’s State Department?
For me, the really amusing part of this is that it comes almost precisely two years to the day after the exact same thing happened.
In March 2002, a series of suicide bombers had prompted Israel to move troops into almost every city in the West Bank. This, of course, prompted more suicide attacks. Bush gave an implicit go-ahead to Sharon to launch an aggressive counterattack.
As the violence escalated, Bush administration officials worked with the British at the U.N. on a resolution calling on Israel to pull out of the Palestinian cities as a way to ease the growing tension. The resolution passed unanimously, with the Bush administration’s enthusiastic support.
That is, until Bush announced that his position was the opposite of his own administration’s position. As Time magazine reported at the time:
[T]hat afternoon, when he finally made a statement, Bush seemed unaware of what his Administration had been up to. And he was working without a net: none of his top aides had followed him to Texas. “Everyone was on vacation,” says a chagrined White House official, “and they pretty much stayed on vacation.” Staffing the President was a junior press aide normally assigned to Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, and it showed. “I can understand why the Israeli government takes the actions they take,” Bush said. “Their country is under attack.” Given the U.N. vote that very morning, the message was incoherent. And the imagery and atmospherics were all wrong: wearing an open-collar shirt and rocking back and forth in his chair, Bush looked like his pre-Sept. 11 self, a little bit scared and a little bit scary. A top official said later, “It was a mistake.”
It’s kind of sad how Bush repeats his mistakes. In March 2002, Bush contradicted his administration’s position on Israel, and yesterday he did it again. He either doesn’t know what the correct answer is, he doesn’t care, or he intentionally wants his administration to take both sides for political purposes.
And just as an aside, I remember the first time I read that Time magazine report two years ago. It had never been clearer to me that Bush was in way over his head as president. The only way for Bush to know what he’s talking about is to have the right staffers there to tell him what to say? Part of being an effective president is keeping up on what’s going on with key international crises and knowing what your own administration is doing about it. In case there was any doubt, Bush made clear that day that he was utterly clueless.
Every time I hear someone tell me that Bush isn’t nearly as incompetent as he seems, I think back to that incident and realize that, in Bush’s case, the appearance of ineptitude reflects reality perfectly.