Regarding Fred Kaplan's piece, I don't think anyone with a sound mind expects miracles on Bush's Middle East tour. What I think he is trying to do prior to the election is to define the Democratic party as the party of appeasement. Obama has been trying to redefine himself as being in the same position as McCain when it comes to terrorists. Bush is trying to shed light on his true position which is far left to what he professes. There is plan to his madness. He is clearly positioning the Republican party as the party that will not "submit" to Islamic extremists, while at the same time trying to enlist the help of those Muslims that are tired of the violence and misery that extremists bring to every land they occupy. When you talk of "negotiating" with groups that have clearly and publicly well defined goals for recapturing all of the territories of the "Islamic Trust" and the annihilation of Isreal, please explain to me where do you start the discussion? Appeasement isn't a strong enough word, lunacy comes to mind. As long as Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah (showing signs of change), and other state supported terrorism (Iran and Syria) continues to publically and covertly support the killing of Isreali and American soldiers, we should treat them equally as the deviants they are until they willfully state they wish to change their goals. We didn't negotiate Kadafi to the peace table. Kadafi saw what happened to Saddam and decided he didn't want to be next. It was U.S. strength that caused his change to give up hostilities with the U.S. The incentives just sweetened the deal. I believe Obama has it backwards on this one. I sometimes fear that Obama believes he can charm anyone to his way of thinking. That's a dangerous policy.

The "scandalous inadequacy" of the President's foreign policy, Fred Kaplan writes. We tried "adequate" foreign policy last time with the U.N. in Iraq. Months upon months passed by as people talked and postured, fully employing the never ending game plan of "putting it on the table, and then taking off" at the last second. This is a function of jihad and hudna where delay buys you time to rebuild and rearm while it costs the U.S. inordinate amounts of time and money to just maintain the present positioning. They know this and use it to it's best advantage all the while pointing to you as the reason things are at a standstill. Reagan understood this and would not entertain it's protagonists. Bush gets it but is just a little bit more clumsy in it's implimentation. It took five years in Iraq , but clearly, after many midcourse adjustments, we are making well defined progress on the ground and in the minds of Iraqis as to our steadfastness. I have always admired the straight, "politically incorrect", talkers like Churchill, Reagen, Thatcher, Kennedy, etc. The negotiators are always waiting for "consensus" which rarely produces results. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, it usually is a superior show of strength by one side that gets the ball rolling in negotiations.

Bush is correct in vocalizing the "emptiness of the terrorists vision". It is a vision that chooses chaos and death as it's vehicle to victory. It's vision of change is one of denial and misery. Even the Iraqi Sunnis threw out the Al Qaida elements due to their brutality by giving up their names to U.S. and Iraqi troops. These are not normal people! You would think the Islamic factions would embrace "Democratic" elections as it plays right into their own hands as it did in Gaza and Lebanon by their sheer numbers. It would be progress if we end up with representative governments that work "out in the open". Over time, the populace would move towards more freedoms, not less.

As for Bush's plan for the Palestinians, I think he was quite clear. First, he wanted to reassure the Palestinians that we can return to the role as the mediator for peace in the Middle East. What are the conditions? Violent groups need to rewrite their charters and remove language that predicates all progress through the use of violence upon the Isreali people. No sense in starting the discussion until all parties show a willingness to move to the center of important issues. Kaplan's convenient forgetfulness is probably caused by his vitriolic dislike of Bush. I don't like him much either, but, for other reasons. On this matter, he clearly sees the enemy in front of us. The "enemies of freedom" are clearly all the Islamic fundamentalist groups that don't seem to care whom they kill or maim to bring Islam into dominance throughout the world. How many bodies do we have to witness before we get it? To set a goal in negotiations is only to set yourself up for failure as targets shift constantly in this region.

Kaplan's careful use of demeaning verbs and adjectives like "plead"; brusquely; humiliating; only dilute his argument with his bias. It's only one step below, "You're a racist". I'm quite sure the Saudi King didn't "poke" Bush, but you try to paint the picture. True facts can stand on their own merit.

Regarding a domestic energy plan, how can you seriously construct a comprehensive plan when alternatives such as drilling for oil on federal land is either prohibitively expensive or just illegal. We sit on top of the largest coal reserves in the world and yet we declare it as "too dirty". We prematurely tie our future to a food stuff, corn to produce ethanol, which requires the same, or more, enegy to produce it. Don't even start about it's effects on food prices or historical crop rotations. Talk about unintended consequences! Other ancillary choices such as wind and solar have their own inherent problems such as storage when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Add that to the time it takes to recapture your investment. A comprehensive plan must truthfully account for all possibilites to be comprehensive! The answer is not as Jimmy Carter used to tell us, "You'll have to learn to live with less." That was a plan we learned was false. As the price of oil rises, all kinds of opportunities will become viable just as the emergence of microprocessors, originally very expensive, became cheaper as more and more uses lowered the costs to the point that they have become ubiquitous in our lives.

That Bush talks openly and candidly with the Saudi King shows the level of comfort the Bush's historically have with the Saudis. What goes on behind closed doors, neither you nor I, am privy. The fact that Bush organized the student conference with all sides represented, and, allowed them questions, is clearly a softening of policy and a hand reaching to connect with those on all sides who seek a peaceful path to a long term solution. His greatest hindrance, which Kaplan failed to mention, is his lame duck status, and the anticipated "change" that terroist groups surely believe they can exploit to their advantage. "Incentives", as we learned in dealing with the the North Koreans cannot succeed on their own. There must be clear "disincentives" to abusing the agreements. "Walk quietly and carry a big stick" never seemed more appropriate than in this sector of the world.

I don't know whether you are biased or not; but your vision is sure blurred. President Bush has no clear idea, or vision, of what "freedom", "democracy", "diplomacy", or "appeasement" means.

Rather, he likes to characterise those who do not agree with him with misconstructions and misconceptions; focusing more on the propoganda value of what he says than on the substance of either his statements, or the policy or position he espouses.

Demonizing opponents, and creating false pictures of reality are the President's meat and potatoes. It almost doesn't matter what his intentions are, as he seems to have no interest in anything than the picture he paints. It is as if the mural in his head, real or not, is all that matters.

Bush talking "candidly" to the Saudi King and getting nothing is a sign of incompetence. He should have sent his people to negotiate with the Saudis in private ahead of time, and only put on a show at the end to demonstrate his power of persuasion. He needs to learn the lesson of Nixon. By the time Nixon met with Mao, all they needed to do was talking about their view of the world. The rapprochement of the two countries was already set into motion in earlier negotiations.

Diplomacy is sort of like haggling. The first price offered is just to get a feel. There is no reason to accept the first price offered by the other side (appeasement), but it's equally idiotic to walk away if you really want the goods. The real price that both sides will be satisfied with is somewhere in between.

No sense in starting the discussion until all parties show a willingness to move to the center of important issues.

So when exactly did Israel decide it would stop building new settlements in the West Bank? (other than temporarily...for show)

I totally agree with you. That has been the standard practice and even Condi Rice says that's the standard procedure in this presidency. That is why Obama's remarks that he would sit down and talk with our enemies is either naive or is just opaque in statement, and he realizes that these things are laid out by aides long before the major players get involved,just as you said, to avoid embarrassments and misunderstandings. They are there just to sign the bottom line. I was trying to assess the supposed significance of Bush asking for some more oil. I don't believe he was negotiating as much as he was trying to score points with the American public over rising gas prices.

In many ways you are correct. In some ways it is a strength and in others its an annoying trait that smacks of tunnel vision. My beef with Bush is regarding immigration and spending. I am extremely proud of our soldier's sacrifice to a greater good. What we learn in this war, in terms of tactical thinking, will do us great service in the future as there is no doubt in my mind that we are only beginning to see the beast that is extremist Islam.

I was referring more to the 1947 offer after the 6 Day War when Isreal offered to give back all the captured territories if the Arab factions would agree to peace with Isreal. They turned the offer down. You have to assume the land wasn't enough. Isreal, also, just recently gave back Gaza on a promise of cessation of hostilities, and look how long that lasted and Gaza is now under the control of it's more violent group. Now, Hamas, is offering a hudna (truce). How can Isreal not believe that this is nothing more than an attempt to move more rockets closer to the border. It is estimated that Hezbollah now has twice as many rockets on Isreal's border than prior to the last skirmish.

Regarding the settlements, I'm with you. I've never understood the point of allowing settlements out in the territories. My only guess is that it's the hardliners trying to drive their stakes in the ground much like we did during our "manifest destiny" moving westward in the U.S. The problem is that it makes protecting them very difficult and is just like poring more salt in an alrady painful wound. Thanks for responding, I tried to present a balanced perspective on this one.

How about "the beast" that is wrong headed U.S. militarism; believing and acting as if being "the only remaining super power" is all that matters?

mrachmuth-That's part of the "tactical" lessons I was speaking about. I'm pretty sure all parties now realize that the dream of installing a Democracy smack in the middle of Islamland will not be happening anytime too soon! The Neo's got their collective butts whoopped with that crazy presumption. I'm pretty sure that beast will settle for just a "presence" now.

I think that the whole idea tha we have to have "presence" there is wrong-headed.

I don't see any virtue in our present Middle East policy, or intelligence in our tactics or strategy regarding terrorism, Islamist or otherwise.

I do remember the build-up prior to Desert Storm and how much effort it took to put all the pieces in place to respond to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. I also remember all the talk about how expensive it was to just "stay in place" off the coast while the powers that be tried to decide where to put everything. By "presence", I think the military just wants to be able to have a central location from which they can quickly respond to an emergency. It takes weeks to move large hardware to that theatre of the world as we have witnessed. Since the Saudis won't allow a permanent base, it seems they're banking on the next best thing, since we will be there, regardless of the pull out of troops, for a long time to come. We will probably operate with special forces working in the dark, and training Iraqis in the daytime. With our dependance on their oil, it seems that we will have to continue to "protect" our interests until we can change our policies of not permiting oil exploration in our own continent. I think there is geat promise in Boone Pickens' idea of using natural gas as a fuel, which we have in abundance. until we can cut that oil umbilical cord and produce our own sources here, I'm afraid the best you can hope for is just a "presence". I rea an article yesterday that says twice as much oil is being consumed in the Middle East than in the U.S. Now that's amazing!

I read your response, and it doesn't answer any of my concerns, or refute my position that the U.S. doesn't, unilaterally, need physical presence in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. With our bases in Europe and Diego Garcia, our Navy and bomber and missle technology, we do not need to be in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan to have the necessary "presence" in the region. Without real international support, we are, and would continue to be, a defacto imperial power, and a motivation for continued chaos in the region, and a continuation of anti-American threats eminating from the region.

mrachmuth- I'll try to answer you concerns clearly, as I see them. Our bases in Europe are no where near enough to the Middle East to respond to an emergency siuation in Afganistan, Iraq, or Pakistan. In most cases, we need to secure permission to "fly over" most of the countries to get to the Middle East, thus alerting everyone of your destination. Without our "presence", you will find Iran and Syria making a big push for hegemony in the Middle East. It is exactly our presence on Iran's borders that keeps them off balance with their plans. It was that very lack of presence that gave Saddam a feeling of optimism that he could invade Kuwait quickly and secure it, while playing a stalling game if the U.N. called for their removal. Today. I read in the most recent intellenge report that Iran has installed over 500 of a new type of centrifuge, since February, that work five times as fast and can produce material for a reactor or for a weapon, depending on the enrichment. Probably just for commercial purposes. If someone discovers a backbone and destroys the poppy fields in Southwestern Afganistan we could destroy the Taliban's means of financing their terrorist networks across the entire Middle East, Many of their efforts would die on the vine as the money they require dries up.

Diego Garcia, at about 3000 miles from Iraq, seems to be less than ideal for storing our fleets and armed forces as it is incredibly small and only has an elevation that would be tested in any type of cyclone at 9 feet above the average mean tide. Would you want to protect the west coast of the U.S. with planes stationed in the east coast? I don't think you want to put all your cards in that tiny atoll where one good missle could cripple virtually all our assets in one fell swoop. Granted it does greatly assist a presence in the Middle East but you really need to have the capability to place boots on the ground quickly, and that doesn't provide that capability. We saw that its not enough to just launch a missle under Clinton. Much of the war in Afganistan was won prior to the introduction of troops there, and aerial support, smart bombs, were instrumental in breaking the backs of the Taliban. Granted you can refuel in the air, it just makes it so much more workable when you are right in the mix of it. Although it played a big role in the 2003 war, most of the planes now are stationed in the quick response location of Qatar.

As it stands currently, our sources of oil are all suspect to fluid political events. Venezuela, with Chavez, is a toss up daily as to whether he will cut us off. The Middle East is only good as long as we protect it. And Canada seems to be the only reliable source, but, is becoming a more competitive area with China, and even Dubai buying up Canadian oil trusts. Mexico, unless they change the constitution, will run out of oil somewhere around 2025, as they lack the expertise to go get the deep sea oil they have. Having squandered Pemex' money, their equipment and R&D budgets are totally incapable of reaching deep sea fields. We have permited, developing our own territories, and our huge reserves of coal, to be taken off the table for a variety of reasons, none of which considers the dire situation we now face. We chose to buy the cheap energy from the developing countries, and now need to reassess that decision. Until we make the decision to develope our own resources, we will be right where we are now, a place where you don't want to be, the Middle East.

I disagree with you complete premise.

Our bases in Europe and the Indian Ocean are close enough, and our naval presence and abilities are adequate enough to both respond to military emergencies and to keep the U.S. and our allies as safe as reasonably possible from threats in and to the Middle East.