DUH!

What? John Bolton writes Europe is turning pro-American while GW still is president. (See 1 below.)

John Podhoretz believes Hillary will be Obama's VP for three reasons:

Obama can't win without her and the healing she represents.

For Hillary, being VP is better than being a damaged goods Senator from New York.

The Party will fawn all over her for soothing the ruffled feathers of what could become a cooked goose in November.

Stephanopoulos agrees.(See 2 and 2a below.)

But Fred Barnes, who is John's friend, thinks the idea of Hillary for VP is crazy. (See 3 below.)

Super-delegates continue to cave because party unity is everything. Long time friends of the Clintons' show no loyalty.

That said, Hillary states she will fight to the bitter end notwithstanding the fact that it is highly unlikely she can win statistically. Then why does she persist?

Hard for Hillary to admit defeat after fighting so hard.

Obviously believes she is the better candidate.

Is waiting for Obama to make another irredeemable mistake.

Wants to become so big an irritant she can extract a variety of commitments from Obama, ie Vice President slot. By winning more states and votes she hangs like a cloud over Obama's head.

An Emory University Professor, who teaches journalism, asks why in the age of 24/7 the media took so long. (See 4 below.)

How many times does a premature release of sensitive news queer a deal? This deal would have died regardless.(See 5 below.)

Duh! (See 6 below.)

Victor Hanson equates GW's plight with HST!

GW might be a punching bag now but history will treat him far better than the current mob. Particularly should the Middle East seed he has planted ripen. For sure, GW has changed that region forever. The question is whether it can progress or retrogress. GW stands a better chance if McCain rather than Obama becomes president.(See 7 below.)

Dick



1) Europe's New Pro-American Direction
By John R. Bolton



Silvio Berlusconi's re-election as Italy's Prime Minister is more promising and more important for Italy and the United States, and for trans-Atlantic relations to look today at Europe's political leadership: Nicolas Sarkozy in France has replaced the bitterly anti-American Jacques Chirac. In Germany, Angela Merkel has replaced the dyspeptic and anti-Iraq war Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain now once again speaks about the US-UK "special relationship." And now, Berlusconi will soon return to the Chigi Palace. How times change.

Europe's new political configuration has already partially manifested itself in NATO's decision in Bucharest to support deployment of U.S. missile defense assets in Poland and the Czech Republic. Even the Bucharest Summit, however, reveals continuing problems, such as Europe's reluctance to start Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward ultimate NATO membership. Pressed by Russia not to open up to these former Soviet republics, Europe bent its collective knee to Moscow. And in Afghanistan, NATO forces are divided between those daily facing difficult combat situations, and those like Italy's and Germany's posted in less dangerous parts of that embattled country.

America's European critics repeatedly disparage its supposed unilateralism, contending that the United States should modify its policies to create a multilateral front against threats such as Iran's nuclear weapons program. From the U.S. perspective, however, the problem is not American unilateralism, but Europe's unwillingness to do much of anything to stand up to external threats, whether from Iran or from a newly resurgent Russia. That is why the NATO missile defense decision is so positive, representing as it does a clear, alliance-wide recognition of the Iranian threat. That is also why the decision on Ukraine and Georgia is so negative, reflecting a European unwillingness to resist Russia's new leverage.

This continuing tension in European thinking underlines the importance of Berlusconi's return to power. He and Italy can now make a critical difference, but only if he is prepared to confront the conventional wisdom about Europe's future. In truth, a larger global role for Europe requires a larger role for individual European nations, not a more powerful European Union. The historical record is clear: the larger the prominence of Brussels in E.U. affairs, the smaller the aggregate role of Europe in the broader world.

Preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability could be a decisive test both of trans-Atlantic relations and of Berlusconi's leadership. For more than five years, European diplomacy by Britain, France and Germany ("the EU-3"), supported by the United States, has failed to constrain Iran's nuclear program. One principal reason for this failure has been Europe's collective unwillingness to impose meaningful--i.e., stringent--economic sanctions against Iran. Italy, with its large trade relations with Iran, Germany and several others have opposed strong sanctions, and, as a consequence, Iran continues toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. In fact, diplomatic efforts to stop Iran now unfortunately seem to be at a dead end.

Berlusconi will thus face a difficult decision, since the imposition today of even very stringent sanctions will likely be too little too late to disrupt Iran's progress. Moreover, Romano Prodi's outgoing administration has left Berlusconi a weakened Italian economy, which only makes the incoming Prime Minister's choices more complex. Unfortunately, however, weak sanctions--"sanctions without pain"--which have long been Europe's preference, are in reality worse than no sanctions at all. Weak sanctions give the appearance of action, while in fact concealing the reality that they have no effect whatever.

The unmistakable signal that such a policy sends to rogue states like Iran is that they can continue their progress on weapons of mass destruction with impunity. That is precisely what they have been doing. For both America and Europe's leading nations, therefore, the diplomatic chances of preventing Iran from achieving its objectives are rapidly diminishing. Although tough sanctions are at this point almost certainly too late, they would at least demonstrate that Italy and other Europeans are preparing for the even more difficult step that may be required, namely changing the regime in Tehran, or, as a last resort, the targeted use of military force against Iran's nuclear program.

Of course, the United States faces its own election in November, and the outcome could well result in a change in America's own direction on Iran. But under the U.S. constitutional system, a President retains full executive power until the moment he leaves office. Moreover, Bush may well be succeeded by John McCain, who takes an even harder line on Iran than Bush does. Mrs. Clinton, no Republican unilateralist, said just before the Pennsylvania primary that she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. The argument to delay decisive action, therefore, misses the critical point that delay works in Iran's favor, as it continues to overcome the scientific and technical challenges in its path to nuclear weapons. Delay almost always works in favor of the proliferators, and that is abundantly clear in Iran's case.

What will Berlusconi do when he takes office? One way to pull Italy out of its current malaise is to help the United States lead the fight against Iran's nuclear ambitions. The EU-3--which intentionally excluded Italy from their ranks--have failed for over five years. Berlusconi can provide a significant alternative, and, even more importantly, do something concrete to derail Iran's threat to the North Atlantic community as a whole.

2) Paying off her debts? VP?
By kos


So Clinton vows to stay in through the end, and surrogates like James Carville are talking tough. But the feeling is that it's all posturing as the Clinton Camp negotiates for 1) having Obama pay off her campaign debt, and/or 2) a spot on the ticket as VP.

Debt
The debt is kind of hard to swallow. On the one hand, Obama's money needs to start being spent against McCain, not to bail out a campaign that racked up the debt after it was clear that she had no shot at the nomination, and debt that was used to attack and smear Obama. Given that the Clintons have more than enough money and fundraising ability to retire their own debt, there really should be no reason to continue harming the anti-McCain effort by draining a portion of Obama's coffers.

On the other hand, let's say that debt is around $10 million. Obama will have to spend more than that to continue fending Clinton off, while delaying the effective start of the general election. Ultimately, it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but one that if the Clintons' insist on (to the detriment of their party), Obama would have little choice but to agree.

Vice Presidency
As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won't outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let's face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama's core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He's been a disgrace.

Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There's no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.

What about her positives? She doesn't deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn't add "experience" to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There's the "unify the party" thing, but that's overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn't support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain's enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they'd never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.

And then there's demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let's not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women's movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, "In our lifetimes". It's inspiring for African Americans as Clinton's chances were for women.

In that regard, Obama has two strong choices -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. While I said above that vice presidential candidates don't bring geography with them, Richardson actually would deliver New Mexico since it's probably the most evenly matched state in the union. Bush beat Kerry by less than a percentage point in 2004, or 7,000 votes. And Richardson's strong cred in the Latino community would improve Obama's chances in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. In fact, I'd camp him out in those states. Furthermore, his foreign policy credibility is unparalleled in Democratic politics, bolstering one of Obama's perceived weaknesses.

It would be tough for Sebelius to deliver Kansas, but she has a proven record of winning moderate and Republican votes without abandoning core progressive principles. She's a former head of the Democratic Governor's Association (as is Richardson), so has strong ties to many of the nation's Democratic governors who will play a large role in delivering the ticket to the Democrats. She has successful executive experience, and was named by Time in 2005 as one of the nation's five best governors for balancing the states crushing $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes or cutting funding for education. She has convinced a large number of her state's Republicans to switch parties. Her (Democratic) Lt. Gov is a former chair of the Kansas Republican Party. She is the kind of "reach out" politician that Obama wants to be, and would be a fantastic choice for him.

And don't worry, she had a bad night during her 2008 state of the union address rebuttal. She's a much better communicator and campaigner than that appearance would indicate.

One added bonus -- I can't think of anyone else who would be a better fit than these two, regardless of race or sex. I know some people like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, but he's sort of a maverick, and wouldn't do the "subservient to the presidential nominee" thing too well. He's a true alpha male, and will be a fantastic senator and maybe someday a top-of-the-ticket guy. I obviously like Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but he's focused on his big plans in Montana, and is currently running for reelection. I like that he's building up his state's Democratic Party, and would rather he continue focusing on that for the moment (and so would him, as far as I can tell). Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine? A compelling possibility who I would slot third in line. His resume is much thiner than Richardson or Sebelius. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland? Also wouldn't be a bad choice, but he cast his lot with Clinton, and that sort of thing matters in decisions like this one. Same with Wes Clark. I like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and she has been a tireless surrogate for Obama, but we'd lose a Senate seat and it would be nice to get some executive experience on the ticket. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is compelling as well (I can't think of any negatives).

There are other compelling names, all of who I would choose before Hillary Clinton. Remember, the goal here is to win the White House and have the most effective government possible, not to salve the bruised egos of an American political dynasty.




2a) George's Bottom Line on Clinton for Veep: Clinton Might Be Negotiating Spot on '08 Ticket, George Says


Is Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., staying in the race to get the vice presidential slot?

George thinks so.
George Stephanopoulos discusses possible exit strategies.

Clinton vowed to fight on today, despite a growing chorus that says Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has just about wrapped up the Democratic presidential nominaton.

ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos told Charles Gibson on "World News" that Clinton is staying in the race to negotiate a spot on the Democratic ticket in November.

CHARLES GIBSON: George, she puts on a brave face in public. What's going on behind the scenes?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I think it's fair to say ... that everyone's waiting for a signal from her on how to go forward. Today, the signal was very clear — we're staying in — [according to] the Clinton campaign. And it's based on the hope that anything can happen. And that every Democrat deserves a vote. That's the principal they're running on right now. The arguments against, inside right now, are you may be spending a lot more money in [a] futile effort. You may also be dividing the party the longer you go on. You heard (California Sen.) Dianne Feinstein say that as well, but the math just doesn't work.
Related
WATCH: Waiting for the Political Endgame
Clinton Fights On in West Virginia: 'I'm Staying in This Race'
Clinton Stays In Amid Doubts She Can Win

CHARLES GIBSON: So, George, if and when the time comes that she decides to get out, who is going to be in that inner circle with her making the decisions?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It is a very small group, Charlie. Of course, President Clinton and Chelsea will be there. Likely, Maggie Williams, her chief of staff, and Cheryl Mills, who is a close advisor and also was a lawyer for President Clinton during [his] impeachment. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the campaign, will be there to advise on the money as well, but this is going to be a small group. Everyone knows the decision ultimately is hers. Those close to her also say, however, that she is very realistic about this, she is not delusional.

CHARLES GIBSON: Is there any discussion of what kind of an exit strategy there would be?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: There are various exit strategies right now. Number one would be, go out on a win. So, stay in until West Virginia, where Sen. Clinton is likely the winner, and Kentucky on May 20, and after that, bow out. Two, negotiate for the imposition of Michigan and Florida, to get those delegations seated, declare victory on that, and get out. But the big one, Charlie — and this is what some people close to the Clintons are talking about: Is there a way to negotiate a settlement with Barack Obama to have Sen. Clinton on the ticket?

t's hard to know. I mean, first of all, would Sen. Obama go for it? Can he get over the bitterness of this campaign? Can he be convinced that it's the strongest ticket? Third, of course, would Sen. Clinton take it? I think if it was offered in the right way, yes.



3) Obama-Rendell? That's the ticket.
By Fred Barnes

The NOTION THAT BARACK Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate is crazy. She passes the first test of a veep selection: she's a plausible president. But she fails the second. She doesn't qualify as a partner on the Democratic ticket (and possibly in the White House) that Obama would be comfortable with--far from it.

But there is someone who does meet these two requirements, plus a third one and maybe a fourth. That person is Democratic Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania. Yes, Rendell was the leading supporter of Clinton when she trounced Obama in the Pennsylvania presidential primary last month. But he's a smart, tough, and respected politician who would no doubt embrace Obama eagerly, fully, and loyally.

Now that Obama has all but locked up the presidential nomination with his landslide victory in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana on Tuesday, pressure is building for Clinton to drop out of the race and, when the time comes, emerge as Obama's running mate on a Democratic dream ticket.

In truth, this would be a nightmare ticket, both dysfunctional and illogical. Opposites usually don't mesh in politics. Sure, LBJ helped JFK win the presidency in 1960. But Clinton isn't LBJ. Rendell comes closer to the LBJ model.

What would Rendell, 64, bring to the ticket? As governor of a major state, he's automatically a national political figure. He's also a former general chairman of the Democratic national committee, which means he's a party man who gets along with Democrats of all types. Though he backed Clinton, he's not identified with any Democratic faction or constituency group.

So it doesn't take a flight of fancy to imagine Vice President Rendell's functioning effectively with President Obama. It does in Clinton's case. Rather than defer easily to Obama, Vice President Clinton would be the ambitious leader of a rival camp. Harmony would not prevail in the White House.

There would also be the Bill problem. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, would be her chief adviser, strategist, and co-conspirator. He'd probably move back to Washington and reside in the Admiralty House, the vice presidential mansion. It would become Clinton headquarters, a safe house for members of the Clinton diaspora.

Obama should recall what he and everyone else learned (once again) from this year's presidential race: when Hillary and Bill get together, it's all about them and getting their way. The interests of other elected officials or politicians are secondary, if that.

More often than not, vice presidential running mates have little effect on the outcome of the general election. But they can sometimes bring their own state. Rendell would, just as LBJ brought Texas in 1960. He would assure that Obama wins Pennsylvania against Republican John McCain in the general election.

This is critical. A Democratic presidential nominee cannot win without capturing Pennsylvania. It's no more complicated than that. Obama starts from a weak position in the state. In losing the primary, he fared poorly among Catholics, working class women, and downscale white voters. Rendell would corral them for Obama, most of them anyway.

Even if Clinton aided the ticket in Pennsylvania, she clearly wouldn't help as much as Rendell. And she would detract in many states. The fact that at least half the country dislikes her--and has for years--is hardly a talking point in favor of selecting her as running mate.

She has another drawback that Rendell doesn't. Clinton is the leader of a large faction in the Democratic party. She wouldn't be dependent on the president for power and influence and a political future. That alone would guarantee disagreements and struggles between her and President Obama. The media would feast on this.

One final thing. A vice presidential case can be made for another Democratic governor, Ted Strickland of Ohio. Like Rendell, he's popular, a Clinton backer, and governor of an important state. But Strickland has been in office for less than two years. He might bring Ohio, but he's not a plausible president. LBJ was. So is Rendell.

4) Wright story: What took so long?
By Don Campbell

The controversial reverend’s 20-year relationship with Obama was left to simmer for a year. In our 24/7 media age, how could this have happened?



Barring some really strange math or a lot of second thoughts, the Democrats seem poised to nominate for president a man with the fewest credentials and least familiarity to the American people of anyone in modern history. It's just one more way that Barack Obama is breaking the mold, and barring a major shift, he should give some of the credit to the news media.

Presidential nominees have almost always been people who have run before and lost, or who have served as vice president or who have had years of experience as members of Congress or as prominent governors.

The only one I can remember who came close to Obama in the slim résumé department is Jimmy Carter, and his rise predated YouTube, ideological talk radio, the Internet and millions of bloggers. He also emerged at a time when political journalists still had and acted upon the instincts of a bloodhound.

The vetting of presidential and vice presidential candidates has long been a responsibility that journalists took seriously:

Two reporters won a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing that George McGovern's short-lived choice for running mate in 1972, Thomas Eagleton, had been treated for mental illness.

In 1984, news exposure of the financial dealings of Geraldine Ferraro's husband after she became Walter Mondale's running mate threw that campaign into a tizzy.

In 1988, reporters discovered that Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush's obscure running mate, had used family influence to land a cushy desk job in the Indiana National Guard and avoid service in Vietnam.

In this election, alas, most of the bloodhounds have lost their sense of smell. For the most part, they've relinquished that space to bloggers and radio talkers who have an ideological agenda, not an obligation to root out the facts and present them fairly.

Wright coverage

Thus, the coverage of Obama's spiritual relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ is disturbing. True, Wright sounded so unhinged on his recent ego tour in Washington that it might generate sympathy for Obama. But the issue still hanging is how a man who played such an important role in Obama's life for more than two decades drew so little scrutiny from reporters covering the Obama campaign. And since Obama himself has said the Wright controversy is a legitimate issue, I'll take that as an invitation to weigh in.

First, it took much too long for major news media outlets to appreciate the importance of the Wright connection. (Not that they all do yet; the pummeling of ABC News by commentators for raising this and similar issues in the Pennsylvania debate further illustrated how out of touch some commentators are.)

The record shows that publications such as the Chicago Tribune newspaper and Rolling Stone magazine had detected the controversial nature of Obama's church about the time he entered the presidential race, in early 2007. Soon after the announcement speech, moreover, Wright himself volunteered to The New York Times that he had been disinvited to give the invocation at Obama's presidential launch because of the baggage he would bring to the podium. That set off conservative bloggers and talkers, but little or no follow-up in the regular or so-called mainstream news media.

More than a year passed before ABC News' Brian Ross had the clever idea to purchase videos of Wright's sermons to review them. The most incendiary clips quickly landed on YouTube, and the rest is history. The news media were dragged into the controversy holding their noses, but by then Obama had the goal line in sight.

Second, the Hillary Clinton campaign should have done the opposition research that would have exposed the dark side of the Obama-Wright connection. Nobody's better at this line of work than the Clintonistas. My guess is they didn't take Obama seriously enough, or they were reluctant to take on a black minister, or they figured the news media would do it for them. Silly them.

Third, Obama's aides should have seen this train wreck coming and tried to derail it months ago. Clearly, they recognized the threat that Wright posed. My guess is they were so dazzled by the reception Obama was getting on the campaign trail that they decided to gamble that the Wright connection would be dismissed as a distraction fueled by right-wingers.

It was a gamble, because if they had faced it head-on, Obama might have been bruised enough by the fallout to lose some of the early states he won. On the other hand, he might have finessed the issue well enough that it would now be a fading memory in the closing days of his battle with Clinton.

Obama's challenge

Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody's idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.

Better that Obama forget the crowds and concern himself with the several million older, moderate Democrats and independents whom he'll need in a close general election. They won't just listen to what he says, they'll try to peer into his soul. That's why the Wright story is important in assessing his candidacy.

More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."

But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is.

5) 'Syrian-Israeli meeting fell through'

A Turkish initiative to hold a meeting between Israeli and Syrian officials fell through after Damascus leaked to the press that Israel had agreed to relinquish all of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat reported Thursday. According to another report, the chances that such a meeting will be held in the near future are slim due to the US administration's stance on Damascus.

The meeting, which was supposed to produce a joint Israeli-Syrian-Turkish declaration, was put off after Syria told the Israeli media that Israel agreed to cede the Golan Heights in a future peace agreement with Syria, the paper reported. According to the report, the meeting was to take place, "somewhere in Istanbul."

Al-Hayat quoted unnamed officials as saying that despite Turkish concern following the Syrian leak, Turkey understood Damascus's wish to know what Olmert's stance was before entering "a new peace venture with Israel."

According to the officials, Syria was encouraged when Olmert did not deny the report. "The secrecy that shrouded the talks in the past year is the main reason for their success," they said.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram quoted a Syrian source as saying that Syria had recently conveyed a message about the negotiations to Israel via Turkish emissaries. The message, they said, touched on the manner in which information would be exchanged between the two sides in the near future.

According to the source, the chance of a meeting between Israeli and Syrian representatives taking place soon was slim due to the current US administration's stance regarding Damascus. Talks between the two sides would only begin next year, after the new US president enters office, the source said.

The Turks, he said, were more focused on laying the groundwork for peace talks than on kick-starting an actual negotiations process. "Damascus considers the establishment of additional settlements on the occupied Golan Heights an act of extortion in any future negotiations," he said.

6)Peres reveals had profound lack of vision regarding consequences of withdrawal:
Peres: I didn't imagine Qassams would be fired from Gaza after pullout.
By Lily Gali

On the eve of Israel's 60th Independence Day, President Shimon Peres cites
the country's achievements but he is also aware of the public's sense of
cautious joy, and how that feeling exists despite the government, not
because of it.

"So what?" he says in an interview this week at the President's Residence.
"It's not terrible that there is no rejoicing at the government. Governments
all over the world are losing their strength. Besides, the Jews gave the
world dissatisfaction. Celebration is not a Jewish thing. Still, I'm
optimistic, though I'm not satisfied."

Such an expression uses the plays on words Peres enjoys so much, but it does
not mask the deep change in his rhetoric and of his world view. The past
decade has handed him some disappointments.

"Although in '98 everything seemed dark because of Rabin's murder, I
believed we could still move the peace process ahead more quickly. I did not
think we'd have so many problems. I believed the separation between the West
Bank and Gaza would make things easier, not harder. I did not imagine that
we would leave Gaza and they would fire Qassams from there; I did not
imagine that Hamas would show so strongly in the elections.

This admission of disappointment, though not of despair, is not the only
change in the man. He never used words like "revenge" or "destruction"
before in a national sense. But he did use them in his speeches in Poland
marking 65 years since the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. He described Israel's
success after the Holocaust as "revenge," and the two intifadas as attempts
to destroy Israel. It might be assumed that the rhetoric stemmed from the
fact that this was Peres' first visit to Poland as president. However, Peres
said, "It's not because I am president, it's because of Ahmadinejad," the
president told Haaretz. "I identify a phenomenon similar to Hitler, and the
world is once again indifferent. I can't say for sure he would behave like
Hitler, but the world is taking him lightly. Not only we are isolated. The
world has changed. We have become both more global and more
individualistic."

If you had spoken like this in the past, you might still be prime minister.

"That could be, but I'm not sure it would be a good thing if I were prime
minister. I can't say I did things this way on purpose, but the result
allowed me to focus on things that were really important to me, and not on
the need to govern. My record while I was not prime minister is richer than
my record as prime minister, even though others were sometimes luckier than
I was. Apparently history has its own wisdom."

We asked Peres to name what he thought were his greatest achievements. His
response: relations with France, Operation Kadesh, Israel Aerospace
Industries, the Dimona nuclear reactor, defense research, Entebbe,
rehabilitation of the army after the Yom Kippur War, overcoming the
inflation of the 1980s, peace with Jordan, Oslo, and the establishment of
cities like Upper Nazareth.

Peres carefully skirts his contribution to the establishment of the
settlement of Ofra, authorized when he was defense minister in 1975.

Peres sees Israel's biggest missed opportunity as the blocking of the London
agreement in 1987 to transfer the West Bank to Jordanian control.

"I thought the option should be Jordanian, although that, too, was not
without its problems," he recalls. "The question was, who would rule, Arafat
or Hussein. To this day I have no doubt it was our biggest diplomatic
mistake."

But Peres did not give up entirely. He continued to promote the
Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian economic initiative. Its map is a world away
from the colonial division of the Sykes-Picot agreement dividing the country
between the French and the British in 1916. "You can have economic and
ethnic relationships, and not only political border," he says.

Experience, in our region too, actually shows that national interests
outstrip economic ones.

"That may be, but national priorities change when a person goes from being
poor to being middle class. I'm talking about economics not only in terms of
money, but in a wider social sense."

On the assumption that we cannot proceed on two tracks simultaneously, is
the Palestinian track preferable over the Syrian track?

"Without a doubt. Even if we have to speak to everyone who wants to talk to
us, and although the Syrian issue seems easier, the Palestinian issue comes
first. Even if only because the Syrian situation is static and the
Palestinian is dynamic. Without Arafat, for example, we would not have
gotten to Oslo. What influenced him, among other things, was that the
Europeans embraced him."

Perhaps the lesson is to embrace Hamas, or at least not to choke it?

"There's no comparison. They managed to bend Arafat. In any case, the Fatah
option must not be weakened."

That sounds depressing.

"Not at all. We only need to suit ourselves to changing circumstances, for
good and for bad. To promote economic peace, which changes societies and at
the same time suit our means of warfare to new threats. There's no point for
an F16 to run after one terrorist. There must be other means and we have
them. At this very moment there are 30 or 40 scientists creating innovative
means of warfare. You have no idea of the IDF's strength. We chose not to
use it, but it exists."

It seems that you are blaming the Palestinians more than in the past.

That's true. We became more flexible and they became more extreme. From this
starting point I want to create good will toward Israel, to make friends."

It seems that the Jew in you was born after you were left last of your
generation of giants.

Indeed, I have a feeling of responsibility to future heritage. I love this
burden. Life should have significance."

7) Presidential Pariah
By Victor Davis Hanson

We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory -- and haven't even started focusing on the general election.

It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush.

It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.

That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.

Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.

When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily.

John McCain has distanced himself from Bush as much as he can, even as his Democratic opponents dub him John McBush -- when they are not outdoing each other in their denunciation of the president.

Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.

He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: "Recession! Worst since the Depression!"

Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year's first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.

There are serious problems -- high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.

Bush, like Truman, will have to leave his final assessment for posterity. But for a variety of historic reasons as well as his own self-interest, Bush should at least take his now-unpopular case to the people, with more press conferences, public addresses, stump speeches and one-on-one interviews.

Bush's own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years -- quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.

Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.

Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing "Bush did it" into the public conscious won't resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants -- if the Congress would only approve -- could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from "Give 'em Hell, Harry." A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end -- and was ultimately rewarded for it.