Bush doesn't have the huevos to stand up to Sharon.

Responding to 9/11 was very easy. He told the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden or else. "Your with us or agin us". "Dead or alive". The tougher he acted and talked the higher his popularity polling. Ovrnight he went from being the guy who lost the popular vote to record high approval ratings. All his advisors were in agreement. Easy.

Now contrast that with his current tough talk statements that he expected Sharon to withdraw his offensive "without delay" or "that he meant what I said"

His advisors are not all in agreement, the usual hawks wanted to give Sharon the green light indfinitely. The Isarael lobby will make him pay a political price to his approval ratings. Notice how they've got all the senators chomping at the bit to criticize Bush and demand more support for Sharon.

Bumbling, Bush has to explain why Arafat is not a terrorist though Sharon calls him one and says to Bush what happened to "wit us or agin us".

Much to his dismay Bush has to make a decision that could cost him some of his approval rating and he has to do it when his handlers haven't reached a consensus.

When it isn't easy it is too tough for Bush, so Sharon can tell him to take a hike. Now there are only statements from Sharon/Peres telling Bush that it will take another two or three weeks or more.

No more "I meant what I saids" from Bush.

Sort of sad in a way; he was looking so tough, so decisive, so tall in the saddle.

 

You guys might be pulling my leg, but "huevos" is slang for balls in Spanish. As a matter fact some polite spanish speakers don't even refer to eggs as huevos, in parts of Mexico because of the slang useage. Thought that was almost like macho in its widespread useage in English. I should have said balls but it sounded so crude and now I have to explain it.

Jeff, you are right it is overstating the case, just rying to be inflammatory and generate responses. It may just be that Bush really didn't mean it, really. This might be true. He still supports Sharon, but wants to enlist Arab support for his longed far invsion of Iraq. Hopefully, Jeff as a pacifist you don't support our planned war with Iraq.

Still think that even though I disapprove of his actions, Sharon is much more a man of courage than Bush. He doesn't respect Bush's resolve. I haven't seen much that makes me respect it either. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong on this issue.

Jeff, what I don't agree with you perhaps is wrt to Arafat. Both Sharon and Arafat are terrorists, as the word is often used. There is a moral or perhaps immoral equivalency. Anyone who doesn't admit this is playing a political game. Men of immoral violent actions you like are called "terrorists" those you support are called President, leader, defenders of Western Civ. etc.

Terrorism is a very politically laoded word. I just saw Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun Magazine on the Alan Keye's show on MSNBC last night. He readily admitted that Begin who later became a peace maker and many of the founders of Israel were terrorists in their day.

Arafat is as legitimate as Sharon, period. They need to make peace and we should be judging them on who has been more of a peace maker in recent years. I say Arafat. Sharon seems to be the same old unreconstructed man of violence pushing Israel to be more extreme, and Arafat is actually a moderate in the current situation from the Palestinian side. Sharon made it clear from day one he wanted to undo past peacemaking, didn't believe in Oslo and wanted to remove Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Now Sharon reallly "meant what he said".

I really don't think what Bush should do for the betterment of America, the Palestinians and peaceful Israelis is that hard to figure out. He must face down Sharonism. The problem is whether he has the will to do so, given that it is not risk free politically for him.

 

Maybe it is like a boy named Sue. That's why he became so tough and violent.