Wow this Annapolis "summit" is fizzling before it even gets started

Bush to open Mideast conference, but won't stay for discussion

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/22139.html


WASHINGTON — President Bush, who's largely ignored the risky business of Middle East peacemaking throughout his nearly seven years in office, will take center stage Tuesday at the international peace conference he's hosting in Annapolis, Md.

He won't remain there for long, however. Bush plans to head back to the White House after delivering his opening speech to the diplomats and dignitaries at the U.S. Naval Academy, and while surprises are always possible, White House aides said he wasn't planning to offer new American proposals to resolve the conflict.

Nor is Bush expected to jump into extended post-Annapolis negotiations or head off to the Middle East to pursue peace in the waning days of his tenure.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president's speech would include "a little more detail." But when she was asked to describe his message, she replied: "I would describe it as 'encourage.' "


Annapolis conference finds little popular support in Middle East
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/22131.html

that would be as close as one could get to talking to a pile of rocks and dumb rocks at that

a pile of dumb rocks.

Nothing more than window dressing. Trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I think this will actually make the "legacy" even worse, not better (as is their forlorn hope).

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/bush.annapolis/index.html


ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (CNN) -- The stakes for President Bush in the Middle East peace process have never been higher.


President Bush restates his personal vow to peace in the Mideast in his toast on the eve of the summit.

1 of 3 That probably says less about the actual process and more about the fact the president has never been that much involved -- at least not until Tuesday's conference he's hosting with more than 40 nations from around the world.

Bush, who started his presidency deeply skeptical of getting too heavily engaged in the peace process, has a motive to get his hands dirty these days -- his legacy on the Mideast is under fire because of the war in Iraq.

Helping to broker a major peace deal in his final year could turn his fortunes in the history books, so now he's putting his weight behind the effort in a major way.

Helping to broker a major peace deal in his final year could turn his fortunes in the history books, so now he's putting his weight behind the effort in a major way.

Every time I hear anything about this shindig, it always includes a statement that no major deals/documents/arrangements are expected to be made. * isn't even staying for the event! How is that throwing your weight behind it in a "major" way?? Idiots. Lazy and stupid to the bitter end.

Now they run out and claim that he tried, blame others for his not succeeding, and then denouncing anyone who says that he failed as being "partisan" "biased" or "hates America"


same old drill. No policy only politics.

for SEVEN years sort of undercuts any such claims. Which is really the main reaason this all looks so silly.

President Bush echoed the view: 'We're going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We're going to tilt back toward Israel." Bush continued, 'If the two sides don't want peace, there is no way we can force them.' Colin Powell said, 'a pullback by the US would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army.' ; Bush added, 'Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things
Source: The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p. 71-72
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Price_of_Loyalty_Foreign_Policy.htm

http://www.economist.com/

When I saw that headline on the Economist, i wasn't surprised, but it did make me guffaw. Then I read the article and I had to admit to myself, "Yeah, if anyone can grab these people right now and make this happen it'd probably be Bush, simply because of his position."

Of course the next thing I said to myself was that there's no way it'd happen. I always forget that Bush doesn't really give a shit about America or the World.

she was counting on this summit to resurrect her failed career as secretary of state...poor condi, she`s no longer the queen of the ball

.... Bush is desperate to claim any achievement during his disastrous tenure. Any achievement besides f**king up the world, of course.

See, Bush doesn't need to attend any actual sessions, just like the one-day economic summit in Waco all those years ago. I'm sure we all remember Bush's inspiring promise to read transcripts of the discussions and the sterling policies that flowed like a freshet from that day, right?

That's the MBA president; the kind of man of action so beloved in America, who doesn't have time to "sit down" and "discuss" things. He's got action to do! Mars, bitches!

Yes I remember the big summit he had that he popped in and out of I also remember how experience security people had never heard of a PDB (covers the entire world every morning) being less than, say, 10 pages. Bush not only has "executive summaries" he has them read to him, seriously.

all over themselves about Bush and his "Peace talks." :puke:

yikes. how pathetic. I don't tune in to the MSM on... anything. This demonstrates how useless they are.

is in the morning when I'm tuning in to our local news. They cut away to the national news for a few minutes where I get the privilege of being informed of Bush's peace talks, how wonderful the economy is or about how Brittany left the house without her underwear again. :eyes:

Our local rag (Richmond Times-dispatch) had no mention of it today, None.


BTW- Britney gave it up when she was 14

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21904751/ <-- today

:silly:

Would you like mustard or mayonaise on your SHIT SANDWICH?

Bush has just brought everlasting peace on earth.

Flaks.