Posted by Mark Silva at 8 am CDT and updated at 4:20 pm CDT
They call these the dog days of August, and even my dogs were dragging this morning as we walked along the Potomac River, with a rising sun attempting to penetrate a monochromatic yellow haze enshrouding the Capitol and all of the national monuments on the horizon in a sinister morning stew of inverted heat and urban exhaust. At least they say it's lead-free.
President Bush went in this morning for his annual physical exam, checking in to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., for a long morning of tests which should yield at least a scintilla of good news on this troubling first day of August. The president is in great shape – physically, if not politically. But more on that later. (Late-breaking update, the results are in, and Bush has gained five pounds, which the 60-year-old president attributes to an over-indulgence in birthday cake lately.)
There's a glacier melting somewhere. And so am I. They are predicting highs of 100 degrees Farenheit today, tomorrow and Thursday here in the nation's capital. But temperatures already have pushed past 100 degrees from Los Angeles to Bismarck, N.D., and word arrived this morning of an electrical power outage in Chicago, which should make for more woe. Around here, they tell us to not even wander outside, if we don't have to, on days like these. They warn us about a Code Red. And that's not Homeland Security talking. That's the Health Department. Maybe I'll call in Red.
The president's physical health couldn't be better, the White House reported this afternoon.
"He put on five pounds. He's up to 196, I believe,'' said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, following the first medical exam. "That... he does, in fact, attribute to an excess of birthday cakes in the recent past. Nevertheless, his standing heart rate is still 46.
"His cholesterol is at the lowest level ever,'' Snow said. "It's 174.
"The doctors once again have found the president fit for duty and have every reasonable expectation that he will remain so for the duration of his presidency,'' Snow said. "He's still healthier than we are.''
For Bush, the political good news is that his job-approval rating has held about steady through perhaps the roughest weekend of the summer, as the Israeli prime minister promises "no cease-fire in the coming days'' and the United States, essentially unable to offer any improvement for worsening conditions in the Middle East, turns to the United Nations for a resolution that might lead to a cessation of hostilities, but more likely will not.
But for Bush, the political bad news is that job-approval rating: 40 percent approval, according to the results of a weekend Gallup Poll released today. His numbers fluctuated between 37 and 40 percent throughout July in the Gallup Poll's surveys, far better than the 31 percent trough he hit in May but still not enough to offer his party a lot of confidence in the mid-term congressional elections fast approaching.
The fact that he actually edged up from 37 to 40 in the last couple of weeks, amidst 20 days of warfare in the Middle East that the U.S. has proven largely unable to influence, is a reflection of the American public's own divided opinion about the latest conflict.
That same weekend Gallup Poll found that more than eight in 10 Americans consider the Israeli military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon justified – while only a plurality believe that Israel has gone too far. Opinion is shifting though -- a couple of weeks ago, 50 percent of those surveyed said Israel was justified, but had taken things too far. Over the weekend, just 44 percent said so. This survey was taken Friday through Sunday, including the day of the Israeli bombing of Qana, which claimed more than 50 lives, many of them children. And only about one-third of those surveyed feel that the U.S. is not doing enough to end to the crisis. Nearly half of those surveyed believe the U.S. is doing about as much as it should be doing.
Some contend that the U.S. is unable to play its traditional role of "honest broker'' in the Middle East in the current crisis, partly because of the three years of costly warfare that the U.S. has waged in Iraq and partly because of the solid support that the Bush administration has provided for Israel, with the U.S. laying the blame for the conflict on Hezbollah.
But Michele Dunne, an expert in Arab affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggests that the Bush administration is not doing more because it is simply unwilling to engage in "the nitty-gritty'' of the diplomacy needed to bring an end to hostilities. Instead, she contends, the administration has taken a "transformative'' view of its role in the region, with a goal of moving more of the Middle East away from the grip of terror and into the camp of democracy and freedom.
"Their approach to the Middle East has been this sort of transformative approach,'' Dunne says, "to change the environment in the region, to stop trouble-making in the region and to spread the growth of democracy. This administration's approach has not been to get into the nitty-gritty of negotiating agreements.'' There's more on this in the Tribune this morning.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may take exception with that view, after returning from two failed trips to the region in which she tried to negotiate a solution to the crisis. Her efforts now are shifting to the United Nations, which a State Department spokesman suggested this week will become "the center of gravity'' for negotiating any solution. Yet her failure in the region may be viewed as either a measure of the administration's unwillingness to press harder, as Dunne would have it, or a reflection of the waning influence that the U.S. has in the region as a result of its own policies there, as many other well-schooled analysts would have it.
If the president has a measure of public sympathy for his inability to make peace in the current crisis in the Middle East, he has lost support for the American military's role in Iraq.
And, from a political standpoint, Bush's advisers and Republican National Committee strategists counting at-risk congressional districts probably are paying more attention today to a striking development in the Capitol than the weather: A dozen leading Democrats in the House and Senate have sent a letter to Bush demanding "a new direction in Iraq.''
Democrats have been singing that song for months, but they haven't been singing in harmony. But now they are calling in unison on the president to begin withdrawing troops by the end of the year and to "transition to a more limited mission'' in Iraq – finally offering Democrats something that they have struggled to agree upon, an alternative to the president's policy, and also offering voters something that they have lacked for a long time: A choice at the polls. The president's advisers have insisted they are content to make November's elections a referendum on the president's handling of the economy and national security. Now the Democrats are drafting a question.
It's a lot to think about, as they cranked up the treadmill under the 60-year-old president this morning. It was air-conditioned in Bethesda. But it's hot here in Washington these days, it's hot in the Middle East, and November is beginning to look a little hotter every day.





Comments
Something seems wrong (perhaps a typo) in the following excerpt (at 9:07 CT) --
>That same weekend Gallup Poll found that more than >eight in 10 Americans consider the Israeli military >action against Hezbollah in Lebanon justified – >while a majority of those surveyed believe that >Israel has gone too far.
8 in 10 IS a majority, and so if there's not a typo, then "considering the Israeli military action ... justified" is somehow different from the opposite of believing "that Israel has gone too far."
Posted by: rick | August 1, 2006 9:11 AM
Actually, it's a plurality that say Israel has gone too far. 50 percent called Israel justified but taking it too far a couple of weeks ago. Just 44 percent say that now. Thanks for noticing that. Fixed it. .
Posted by: Mark Silva | August 1, 2006 9:18 AM
I find it mind-boggling that this administration is now attempting to pass the buck on the Israel/Hezbollah conflagration to the UN. For a president who tarred his 04 opponent with the "flip-flop" label, he has gone from "the UN is a worthless institution" to "the UN is our only hope" so many times that Kofi must have whiplash trying to keep up.
As to the note that we have lost he ability to be an honest broker, I think there's a great deal of truth to that position: what Muslim group could possibly trust us given our track record in Iraq?
Posted by: Tim Howe | August 1, 2006 10:04 AM
Please,please,Doctor...give George W. a brain!Dick Cheney is currently at an undisclosed location,promoting gun safety.Condi,your the only one left,please save the great neo-con nation.
Posted by: FOX LIES!! | August 1, 2006 1:07 PM
Use of the UN to advance desired foreign policy objectives requires leadership from the permanent members of Security Council. No single nation is going to succeed without some negotiation and compromise. That is simply the nature of the beast and we have lost the credibility we once had with our fraudulent presentations leading up to 2003 invasion of Iraq. We are paying a high price in our declining position in world opinion.
Posted by: Bob Stewart | August 1, 2006 1:12 PM
Any war is stupid. A war based on differences in beliefs is solvable by providing knowledge that shows that the beliefs are irrlevant. If I had Condoleeza Rice's job, I bet I could get the opposing people/governments to sit down with me during which I would explain some things to them that need explaining and that would get them to stop fighting each other. The friction between the two cultures is based on a state of ignorance that both of them have as well as Ms Rice. I can eliminate that ignorance and make them realize how stupid and criminally they have acted. While the knowledge I have is not religious in nature, it will have a profound affect on their religious beliefs and that will result in the choosing to not kill each other. I can prove this. Are you willing to take me over there so I can address them? I'm not a nutcase. I'm smart, wise and knowledgeable and I care about these people as much as I care about myself and everyone else. I'm not Jewish. I'm human.
Sincerely,
Laurence Topliffe
641-472-7354
Posted by: Laurence Topliffe | August 1, 2006 1:52 PM
When do the results come back on the mental exam?
Posted by: bill r. | August 1, 2006 2:07 PM
I got a chuckle at the "either/or" observation Mark Silva makes in the above article. According to Silva, Rice's failure to create peace in the Middle East in her recent trips "may be viewed as either a measure of the administration's unwillingness to press harder [on negotiations], as Dunne would have it, or a reflection of the waning influence the U.S. has in the region as a result of its own policies there, as many other well-schooled analysts would have it." There are many other ways to view this besides the two Mr. Silva so simplisticly offers up. For example, it may be viewed as a struggle that cannot be ended by negotiation or by any diplomatic effort the U.S. tries. Certainly the history of the last 50 years, with presidents (including Bill Clinton) repeatedly trying and failing to broker peace, suggests that no amount of talky-talk will stop Hezbollah and other Muslim extremist groups from attacking Israel. If the amnesiac Mr. Silva weren't so busy getting his usual anti-Bush digs in, he'd perhaps remember that attacks on Israel didn't suddenly start in the Bush administration.
Posted by: Bruce | August 1, 2006 3:49 PM
Bruce,
I suspect Mr. Silva didn't see the need to trace the conflict back through the Old Testament, and we're grateful to him for that.
Get out of the sun.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | August 1, 2006 4:19 PM
That's quite observant Bruce. Where's that cricitical thinking when it comes to GWB and his administration?
Posted by: drew | August 1, 2006 6:33 PM
Laurence,
First, I hope you aren't stupid enough to have used your real phone number.
Second: "Any war is stupid". Really? I think this country fought a pretty meaningful one about 230 years ago and then the follow-up war in 1812. Also, that war in the 1860's had some meaning to a few people that at the time were considered 3/5 human (thank you Republican party). WW2 kepts us from goose-stepping.
Posted by: Terry | August 1, 2006 7:36 PM
"I think this country fought a pretty meaningful one about 230 years ago"
Some would say that was not too different to the fight being fought today by those sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.
Posted by: Robert Carey | August 1, 2006 9:25 PM
World War I was pretty important. If they'd done the reconstruction properly after that war then World War II probably would have never happened.
The Pelopenesian War was another one that certainly changed the course of history. Same thing with the Punic Wars.
Posted by: Bill | August 1, 2006 9:46 PM
I certainly wouldn't characterize the Palestinian terrorists who use suicide bombing, kidnapping and extortion as weapons against civillians as anything akin to the valor of the colonial troops who fought for our independence. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
Posted by: Bill | August 2, 2006 1:28 AM