You know, T, that they Sauid Propoasl laid down the basics that you suggest. A "simultaneuos" recognition of Isreal's right to exist and the recognition of a Palestinian State. I agree with you that this would be a grand jesture and one that could open up avenues that would lead to a greater and more comprehensive "Summit" that you have outlined and I have been holding as an alternative to the huff-n-puff foriegn policy with which I have been most unhappy.

As for the regime change in Iraq, I would agree that if it were my *choice* to have Tarek Azziz, but I am suggesting that "regime changes" are not a productive goal to be put forth in trying to sell folks on the importance of their participation in the "Summit". Quite the contrary. I mean. like who's gonna show up thinking that Ari Fleisher's gonna try the "single bullet theory"?

I agree, that the "Summit" can't happen under today's climate of distrust but again will state that if Bush were to use a little more diplomacy and a little less sabre rattling that an Isreali/ Palestinian agreement is within reach. And with that featehr in Bush's cap, he could use that as a springboard toward the "Summit".

What bothers me the most is that when Bush came to Washington, he threw the baby out with the bath water. No matter what the Clinton Adminstration was trying to do, Bush just went about doing the opposite. In turning his back on the Middle East he set a climate for not only 9/11 but for the increased fighting between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. I guess that is why I don't hold much faith that he has the vision or wisdom to carry out a foriegn policy that is not fueled by militarism.

But, T, we are in agreement on a number of issues but perhaps not on the one that is most imporatant: Is man capabible of moving forward without blowing folks up?

Peace

Bobert