As he heads off to Israel to commemorate that nation's 60th anniversary, George W. Bush is nothing if not optimistic about the prospects for Middle East peace. Even as his negotiating partners are incapacitated by scandal and internal conflict, the lame duck President reiterated his January promise to produce an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by the time he leaves office eight months from now.

Earlier this year during his first visit to the region, Bush assured the world that his better-late-than-never Annapolis peace process would result in a signed agreement during his presidency:

"I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office...I'm on a timetable. I've got 12 months."

In an interview today with Al-Arabiya television, President Bush doubled-down on his earlier bet. Asked if an agreement can still be reached by the time he departs the White House, he repeated his pledge:

"Yes, I think so. That's what I'm aiming for, absolutely. We're pushing hard.''

President Bush might have wanted to first check in with his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On April 29, Rice tried to reset expectations, telling an American Jewish audience that "we have a chance to reach the basic contours of a settlement by the end of the year." Bush himself briefly signaled a retreat during an April 24th meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, lowering his goal from a peace treaty, "I'm confident we can achieve the definition of a state." And during a press conference five days later, Bush remained ebullient about what then seemed to be more modest goals:

"I'm still hopeful we'll get an agreement by the end of my presidency. Condi is heading back out there. I've been in touch with President Abbas here in the Oval Office, and I talk to Prime Minister Olmert, and the attitude is good. People do understand the importance of getting a state defined."

Alas, President Bush's perpetually sunny disposition seems disconnected from events on the ground. Even amid the chaos and carnage in March as Israeli forces and Hamas forces battled in Gaza, Bush announced, "I'm still as optimistic as I was after Annapolis." Now, the prospects seem bleaker still, with Abbas still mired in Fatah's power struggle with Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert perhaps fatally weakened by the mushrooming corruption scandal enveloping his government. In an interview on Monday with the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, Bush made it clear he was undeterred:

Q: Mr. President, Prime Minister Olmert is under a corruption probe and is basically almost on the verge of being forced out from office. And his counterpart, Abu Abbas, is also very weak. So really the question is, do you still think that you can achieve peace until the end of 2008?

THE PRESIDENT: I do, yes.

Even though talks between Olmert and Abbas continue behind the scenes, the environment is not a promising one. As Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), recently put it:

"It's hard to remember a less auspicious time to pursue Arab-Israeli peacemaking than right now. The politics on the ground are absolutely miserable."

That won't dampen President Bush's enthusiasm in his latest mission to the region to press for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, halt the violence in Lebanon and, not insignificantly, "jawbone" the Saudis on the price of oil. After putting the road map for peace on the backburner for much of his presidency, Bush today reminded Al Arabiya, "I'm a peace man." As George W. Bush told Ha'aretz on Monday:

"And as I told you, I'm not running for the Nobel Peace Prize; I'm just trying to be a guy to use the influence of the United States to move the process along."

A hallmark of the Bush presidency has been the public disavowal of actions already taken in secret. In just the latest episode of Bush White House duplicity, the Washington Post revealed today that President Bush in 2004 secretly approved the expansion of existing Israeli settlements on the West Bank despite his stated policy to the contrary dating back to the start of his first term.

Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush's letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush's peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank...

...Israeli officials say they have clear guidance from Bush administration officials to continue building settlements, as long as it meets carefully negotiated criteria, even though those understandings appear to contradict U.S. policy...

..."It was clear from day one to Abbas, Rice and Bush that construction would continue in population concentrations -- the areas mentioned in Bush's 2004 letter," Olmert declared in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, published Sunday. "I say this again today: Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Ze'ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem," referring to new settlement expansion plans. "It's clear that these areas will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement."

Olmert points to a key sentence in Bush's 2004 letter as providing Israel with blessing from the United States to expand settlements in several existing sites. "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers," Bush wrote, "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

For its part, the Bush administration claims that "no such agreement exists." Given the past denunciations of Israeli settlement activity by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, those denials are not surprising.

At least as far back as 2002, President Bush insisted "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop." Speaking in Jordan on March 31 during her latest swing through the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated Bush's firm opposition to new settlement activity in the West Bank, even as the Israeli government announced plans to build hundreds of new homes in the occupied West Bank:

Asked, however, about Israel continuing to approve construction of new housing in contested territory, Rice criticized the close U.S. ally.

"Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop," Rice said.

It is worth noting tangentially that that position is shared by all three of the remaining presidential candidates, including John McCain. As the Israeli paper Haaretz reported last month:

At the end of the day it is hard to find differences in the promises being made by the candidates that have survived in the race - Clinton, McCain and Obama - regarding the peace process. All of them want involvement, all are opposed to Hamas, all are in favor of a Palestinian state and against Palestinian terrorism, all are in favor of security for Israel and against the settlement construction.

So as Abbas arrives at the White House, he will meet with a president whose private assurances to the Israelis will likely further jeopardize the Annapolis peace process he only belatedly supported. As for President Bush, his mixed signals on the expansion of Israeli settlements only serve to make his pledge to achieve a Middle East peace agreement by the end of tenure even more remote.

UPDATE: At the White House today, President Bush announced that a Palestinian "state that doesn't look like Swiss cheese" was a high priority for his administration. Meanwhile, Dana Perino began the walkback from Bush's commitment to a peace agreement before he left office, claiming, "a lot of this is up to the Palestinians and the Israelis, who committed to trying to work something out by the end of the year."

The Los Angeles Times reports today that Republican nominee John McCain has begun a quiet retreat from the centerpiece of his foreign policy vision, a so-called "League of Democracies." First unveiled in May 2007 and a highlight of his March 26 national security address, McCain despite his past angry criticism of America's European allies envisioned a league of democracies which could "act with great influence and power, both economically and militarily." Unfortunately for McCain, what thrills his neoconservative backers is what worries America's friends: the true purpose of his proposal is to "kill the UN."

In multiple speeches and in his November 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, McCain outlined a vision of the world's 100 democracies as like"-minded nations working together in the cause of peace." The organization, which would not include Russia, could act "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval." As the LA Times noted, McCain's League "could use military force as well as economic and diplomatic pressure" in Iran, Darfur and other global hot spots.

Despite Senator McCain's insistence that "this League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations," his hawkish neocon supporters haven't been shy about proclaiming otherwise. Last May, the Weekly Standard reported that many in the conservative blogosphere felt McCain's proposal didn't go far enough in defenestrating either the UN or America's supposedly feckless allies. But on March 27, Charles Krauthammer was positively ecstatic about McCain's League as representing a death blow to the United Nations:

"What I like about it, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's all about listening and joining with allies, all the kind of stuff you'd hear a John Kerry say, except that the idea here, which McCain can't say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N."

Which is precisely what so concerns foreign policy realists here at home and America's friends abroad. Despite McCain's claims to the contrary, the LA Times reports that "European officials were cautious." On senior EU official said McCain's league, with its confrontational stance towards Russia (whom McCain would expel from the G-8), "can appear as something divisive." Ford and Bush 41 national security adviser Brent Scowcroft wrote "that it was a 'bad idea' to create a new bloc in global affairs that would divide the world 'between the good and the evil.'" (The Desert Beacon has a thorough round up of other reactions.)

So this past week, John McCain began the walk back from the edge of the foreign policy abyss. While still mouthing his platitudes and catch phrases about his League (as recently as yesterday on ABC's This Week), McCain has started - quietly - to defang his proposal:

Now, however, McCain says the group would not use military force, and would be an informal organization in which democratic nations come together in different groupings, depending on their concerns.

"It does not envision military action," McCain told reporters in Dallas on April 11. He said it would "not be a formal organization; it would be a coalition of nations that shifts sometimes depending on what their priorities are."

That dramatic turnaround, however, is just one of the ironies for a man who prides himself on supposed straight talk. The very democracies McCain sees as the core of his League are the same nations he repeatedly ridiculed in the past.

Last May, for example, McCain announced that "to be a good leader, America must be a good ally," adding, "We Americans must be willing to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies." But in the run-up to and in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, John McCain had only scorn for France, Germany and the other nations of what Donald Rumsfeld deemed "Old Europe:"

"The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer: France and Germany do not speak for Europe...most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values. We thank this European majority for standing with us." (February 11, 2003)

"Compare our great power allies in the Cold War with those with whom we act today in dealing with Iraq. France has unashamedly pursued a concerted policy to dismantle the UN sanctions regime, placing its commercial interests above international law, world peace and the political ideals of Western civilization. Remember them? Liberte, egalite, fraternite." (February 13, 2003)

"They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it...Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council when the United Nations was organized." (February 18, 2003)

While John McCain's dual retreats from his past France-bashing and League of Democracies concept may create confusion about his future foreign policy and attitude towards the United Nations, one man provides a pretty good indication of where McCain's true feelings lay. John Bolton (who famously quipped that if the UN building lost its top 10 floors, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference") praised McCain for his past support. "He thought I was the type of ambassador that ought to represent the United States at the United Nations."

But you'd never know from the reporting of McCain's excellent European adventure. Time described a "love-fest" with Sarkozy and McCain's "mix of quips, conviction, and clear interest in international affairs" that journalists "largely impressed."

It was, however, John McCain himself who hinted at his true feelings regarding his French hosts. In essence, McCain implied, relations with the United States would improve solely due to the deference to the U.S. properly restored by President Sarkozy:

"I think relations with France will continue to improve no matter who is president of the United States because this president is committed to greater cooperation and values our friendship."

That is a revealing comment indeed coming from John McCain. After all, McCain's bitter words toward France regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq showed the last thing he valued was friendship with Paris.

As President Bush prepared to pull the trigger on the Iraq war in February 2003, John McCain was at the forefront of those browbeating the Chirac government for France's refusal to back the U.S. at the United Nations. On February 11, 2003, McCain co-sponsored a Senate resolution praising 18 European nations backing U.S. enforcement of UN demands for Saddam's disarmament. In his press release, McCain echoed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in thundering at the France and Germany of "old Europe:"

"The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer: France and Germany do not speak for Europe...most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values. We thank this European majority for standing with us."

McCain's venom towards the French was on full display two days later during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. On February 13, 2003, McCain warned of "new threats to civilization [which] again defy our imagination in scale and potency" portrayed Iraq as "threat of the first order." He proclaimed that "the United States does not have reliable allies to implement a policy to contain Iraq" and pointed the finger squarely at France:

"Compare our great power allies in the Cold War with those with whom we act today in dealing with Iraq.

France has unashamedly pursued a concerted policy to dismantle the UN sanctions regime, placing its commercial interests above international law, world peace and the political ideals of Western civilization. Remember them? Liberte, egalite, fraternite."

Just days later on February 18, 2003, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline program showed a furious McCain foaming at the mouth over France:

Here's how influential Senator John McCain sees the French.

JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN SENATOR: They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it.

NORMAN HERMANT: Many in Washington are now saying relations with France have been a problem going all the way back to the end of World War II.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council when the United Nations was organized.

McCain's feud with the French continued even after the start of hostilities and President Bush's May 1 declaration of "mission accomplished" in Iraq. But in a cynical July 2003 keynote address to the Atlantic Partnership (which promotes "the benefits of a strong and stable Atlantic community of nations"), Senator McCain acted as if he had never uttered his seething words of condemnation. Even in papering over the schism he helped foster, McCain couldn't resist taking a potshot at France:

"France and Germany shared the goals of our campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime. We obviously disagreed over the means. Now that we have achieved our common objective of ending the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq, it's time to stop quarreling over the way we did so and move on. European nations that opposed the war must resist the tendency to say "I told you so," sit on the sidelines as the United States and our partners attempt to transform Iraq, and hope we find ourselves in a sandy quagmire that, in the eyes of some war opponents, would give us our just due...

...The United States must resist the tendency to punish our friends who did not support how we went to war, because things could have turned out differently. By the admission of Germany's leading opposition figures, who lost a close election to the current chancellor's coalition, a government in Berlin led by them would have stood with the United States in the diplomatic campaign preceding the war. France would have been isolated in its opposition, unable to claim to speak for Europe."

But that was five years ago. The United States, humbled by its humiliating fiasco in Iraq, is in no position to say "I told you so" to anyone. French President Chirac, a persistent thorn in the side of the Bush administration, is gone, replaced by the more complaint conservative cheerleader in Paris, Nicolas Sarkozy. And most importantly, John McCain is now running for the White House and needing to project a presidential image during his European tour. Which means it's time for John McCain to reverse course yet again and discover his "friendship" with France.

(Note: While the U.S. media has ignored John McCain's past frying of the French, thanks to the Campaign for America's Future, Americans are learning more about McCain's instrumental role in inadvertently helping France's Airbus win the $40 billion tanker deal at the expense of U.S.-based Boeing.)

UPDATE: ThinkProgress provides more examples of John McCain's past venting towards the French.

Over the past week, Democrat Hillary Clinton has proclaimed her potential Republican rival John McCain to be the gold standard of wartime presidents. But lost in Clinton's fierce barrage against Barack Obama's national security experience is the inescapable conclusion about John McCain's own suitability as Commander-in-Chief. McCain's mistake-filled record, questionable judgment, calamitous misreading of history, nonchalance about American casualties and notorious short fuse all combine to make him a dangerous choice to lead an America at war. Simply put, John McCain is unfit for command.

Hoodwinked by Chalabi

John McCain was certainly not alone in his enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the greatest American strategic debacle since the end of World War II. But as ThinkProgress detailed, McCain was an early and vocal advocate beginning in the 1990's for Ahmed Chalabi, the charlatan and pitchman for the Iraqi National Congress:

One of his key backers has been John McCain, who was one of the first patrons of Chalabi's grand-sounding International Committee for a Free Iraq when it was founded in 1991. McCain was Chalabi's favored candidate in the 2000 election since Chalabi knew that he would be able to free up the $97 million in military aid plus millions pushed through in Congress and earmarked for Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, but held up by the Clinton State Department.

Indeed, McCain was a Chalabi backer long before President Bush took power. In 1997, he tried to pressure the Clinton administration into setting up an Iraqi government in exile.

Despite Chalabi's past sentencing in absentia in Jordan to 22 years in prison for embezzlement and bank fraud, McCain declared in 2003, "He's a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart." Still, don't expect to see Ahmed Chalabi at President McCain's State of the Union address in 2010.

No doubt, John McCain was hoodwinked by Chalabi, the charismatic frontman for a self-serving exile group out of touch with the people - and reality - on the ground in Iraq. But with exile figures and dissident groups - and their questionable intelligence - set to play a critical role in the American approach to Iran, the United States can't afford any more of John McCain's judgment and experience.

Failing History 101

To be sure, Americans cannot trust John McCain to safeguard the nation's future because he does not understand its past. Nowhere is McCain's confusion more on display than in his repeated (and misguided) comparisons of Iraq to South Korea and his commitment to keep American troops there for 100 years.

Here, McCain traveling down the well-trod path of President Bush. Last June, then White House press secretary Tony Snow described Bush's "over the horizon support role" for the United States in Iraq as comparable to the American presence in Japan, Germany or South Korea:

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability."

The analogy, of course, is laughable. Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered to Allied forces in World War II and were occupied by U.S. troops after those nations' total devastation. Each subsequently became allies in the Cold War, and featured a large - and perpetual - American military presence as part of strategy to contain the Soviet Union. In South Korea as well, U.S. troops provide a guarantee against the external threat posed by the North. There, American troops serve as a trip-wire intended to trigger a massive U.S. response in the face of any aggression by Pyongyong.

In none of those places is the U.S. an occupying power, propping up a government against domestic threats or trying to limit a civil war. In Iraq, the United States is part referee trying to prevent the death spiral of sectarian conflict among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and part enabler, backing both the Shiite dominated Maliki in government in Baghdad and independent Sunni security councils opposed to it. While the fight against must Al Qaeda continue, the U.S. with its installations around the Persian Gulf does not need permanent, forward operating bases in Iraq.

And yet John McCain mimics the Bush administration's shockingly erroneous Korea model. In June, McCain echoed the White House, proclaiming, "We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds." By January 2008, McCain said "it would be fine" with him if the American forces remained in Iraq for "a hundred years:"

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years - (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that... (cut off)

McCAIN: We've been in South Korea...we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.

As David Corn reported, McCain was only too happy to extend the American timeline in Iraq to "a thousand years" or "a million years." One month later, McCain nonchalantly claimed, "The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time." Facing criticism for those comments, McCain on February 28th just dug the hole deeper:

"No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties...But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood."

McCain's centuries-long commitment in Iraq is more than a little ironic. After all, in January 2003, McCain confidently predicted of the American invasion, "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."

Casual with Casualties

It's also ironic that John McCain would claim "the key to it is American casualties." McCain, after all, has repeatedly downplayed the dangers U.S. troops face, all in the name of helping sell the ongoing war in Iraq.

One of the more comic moments in McCain's cheerleading came on April 1, 2007. (Literally April Fool's Day - you can't make this stuff up.) Wearing a bulletproof vest and guarded by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead," McCain briefly toured a Baghdad market to demonstrate that the American people were "not getting the full picture." As ThinkProgress detailed:

McCain recently claimed that there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed "walk freely" in some areas of Baghdad.

And just this past weekend, Senator McCain returned to a tried and untrue Republican talking point: Iraq is no more dangerous than most major American cities. Speaking to an audience on Saturday, McCain announced, "There's problems in America with safe neighborhoods as we well know." In this case, at least, even McCain realized his statement was non-sensical on its face and sounded the retreat. "I'm not making that comparison, because it's much more deadly in Iraq obviously," he said, adding, "But it's kind of the same theory."

Hothead with a Short Fuse

Alas, John McCain is no John Kennedy.

His explosive temper is the stuff of legend. An equal opportunity hothead, the Republican presidential nominee has a reputation for "raising McCain" with friend or foe alike.

Just ask Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn. While Cornyn endorsed McCain for the White House last week, in March 2007 he was on the receiving end of a McCain tantrum. Clashing over immigration policy, McCain dropped the F-bomb, saying to Cornyn, " F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."

Cornyn was not alone among Senate Republicans in feeling the wrath of McCain. In 1999, McCain told the Finance Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), "Only an a****** would put together a budget like this." On another occasion, he blasted the mild mannered Chuck Grassley (R-IA), " I'm calling you a f****** jerk."

That ticking time bomb that is John McCain worries many in American military and diplomatic leadership circles. As Salon noted just last week, many are terrified that President John McCain will be picking up that phone at 3:00 AM.

Major General Paul Eaton, who headed up training of Iraqi forces in 2003 and 2004 and now supports Hillary Clinton, made precisely that point.

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

General Merrill McPeak, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions, is a former Republican who now supports Barack Obama. His conclusion: "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile."

And it's not just Democrats who are frightened by the prospect of John McCain his finger on the button. Freshman Tennessee Senator Bob Corker admitted he's "had his moments" with McCain and refused to answer the question whether he is"temperamentally suited to be President of the United States." Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran, who nonetheless endorsed McCain, aired his concerns:

"The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me."

But it may have been Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired army colonel and formerly Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aide, who perhaps best summed up the worries of McCain's GOP allies:

"No dissent, no opinion to the contrary, however reasonable, will be entertained. Hardheaded is another way to say it. Arrogant is another way to say it. Hubristic is another way to say it. Too proud for his own good is another way to say it. It's a quality about him that disturbs me."

More Cowboy Diplomacy and Frontier Justice

If these defects of character and temperament sound familiar, they should. They make John McCain the natural heir to George W. Bush.

Bush, after all, brought his ersatz brand of cowboy machismo to the White House. Just after the 9/11 attacks, Bush talked tough about his plans for Osama Bin Laden, declaring, "There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" Later, as the nascent Iraqi insurgency began to take its horrible toll on American forces in 2004, Bush spit out, "Bring 'em on."

While even George W. Bush acknowledged "using bad language like, you know, 'bring them on' was a mistake," John McCain seems to have unlearned the lesson. In April 2007, McCain answered a question about his policy towards Tehran by breaking into song. Singing to the tune o the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann," McCain sang," Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

And like Bush, John McCain wants to get biblical on Osama Bin Laden. As I detailed last month, McCain's standard formulation is to declare that he will follow Bin Laden to the "gates of hell." At one campaign stop, McCain even told workers at a small weapons plant in New Hampshire that he would use their guns to do it:

"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products."

Earlier today, the McCain campaign announced that its man would soon travel to the Middle East and Europe. No doubt, the extended photo-op is designed to highlight John McCain's leadership skills and project an image of him as Commander-in-Chief.

But being a wartime President isn't about bravery and sacrifice in combat forty years ago. And Hillary Clinton's delusions notwithstanding, longevity in Washington is no certain qualification, either. America's commander-in-chief needs judgment more than experience, persuasiveness more than pure power, and calm confidence more than sheer force of conviction. When it comes to friends and foes alike, there is simply no substitute for understanding and level-headedness.

John McCain is alarmingly lacking in virtually all the qualities that matter most. His self-proclaimed greatest strength on national security is in reality a glaring weakness. A McCain presidency would make the American people less safe and the world a more dangerous place.

Even as Israel began withdrawing its troops following its latest clashes with Hamas forces in Gaza, Vanity Fair published a shocking account of how the Bush administration bungling fueled the crisis there. Covert U.S. backing of armed Fatah units helped spark the bloody civil war that left Hamas in control of Gaza. But given that Condoleeza Rice's official State Department Middle East Peace Process timeline doesn't even mention Hamas, the disastrous Bush intervention seems much less surprising.

Today's Vanity Fair piece provides a devastating assessment of the Bush team's latter day Bay of Pigs:

After failing to anticipate Hamas's victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

Of course, to counter the growing strength of Fatah's rival in the Gaza and the Palestinian Territories, the Bush administration needed to first at least acknowledge the existence of Hamas. And as I wrote in the run-up to the November 2007 Annapolis summit, that is precisely what the revisionist history of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refused to do.

As Rice prepared to host the Middle East summit in Annapolis this week, her State Department has issued an updated historical timeline of American efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The timeline is a fascinating document both for what it reveals and what it leaves out. The rise of Hamas and its election victories are mentioned nowhere. That might just be because President Bush's hands-off policy of malign neglect is in part responsible for it.

The State Department's "Middle East Peace Chronology" lists key events, American diplomatic initiatives and other international efforts dating back to the Camp David accords brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1978. The Oslo Accords, peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, the Wye River summit are all described. The 2003 premiership and later 2005 presidential election Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas ("Mahmoud Abbas wins the Palestinian presidential elections with 62.3 percent of the votes cast") are detailed. The November 2004 death of Yasser Arafat, an act of God central to President Bush's policy in the region, is listed as well.

What is glaringly absent from the Condi Rice's picture of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is any mention of Hamas. That group, part political party, part social organization, part terrorist organization, is excluded despite constituting the central reality on the ground over the past two years. Its forces now control Gaza, having routed the Fatah cadres there. And in January 2006, Hamas won an overwhelming victory in the Palestinian elections, capturing 76 of 132 seats in the parliament to only 43 for Abbas' Fatah.

Given the centrality of democracy promotion to the Bush Doctrine, the omission of the Hamas victory at the polls might seem puzzling. But that seeming mystery disappears upon reflection. After all, the rise of Hamas was not only a disaster for the Bush administration; it was the by-product of its own strategy in the region. And worse still, no one in President Bush's cabinet saw it coming.

In 2006, Secretary of State Rice admitted as much. As the New York Times detailed:

"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."

Despite the infusion of American cash and USAID resources to Abbas' party in the run-up to the elections, Hamas won its smashing victory. But in retrospect, that outcome should have been no surprise. The Palestinian voters rejected the rampant corruption and economic stagnation of the Fatah government, as well as its utter failure to make headway in countering the Israeli occupation. And perhaps just as important, President Bush's years-long refusal to negotiate with Yasser Arafat left Fatah impotent and emasculated.

In March 2002, Israeli forces assaulted Arafat's Ramallah compound in the wake of Palestinian terrorist attacks and the PLA's efforts to acquire weapons. By that summer, President Bush in essence endorsed the Ariel Sharon's position that Arafat was "irrelevant" and "an enemy" that "will be isolated." In a major address on June 24, 2002, Bush announced that the United States would no longer work with Arafat's Palestinian Authority, a government he claimed had "no authority" and was "unaccountable." Calling for "new Palestinian leadership," Bush ironically foreshadowed the disastrous Hamas landslide to come:

"I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts."

But only now, in the twilight of his presidency, does President Bush offer the appearance of engagement in helping resolve the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps the central factor in global Muslim animus (and Al Qaeda propaganda) towards the United States, the Israeli occupation was not an issue on which Bush would expend effort and political capital.

Not, that is, until the very end of his presidency. With his eyes fixed not on events on the ground in the Middle East but on his legacy, in January George W. Bush confidently predicted an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty would be signed within one year:

"I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office...I'm on a timetable. I've got 12 months."

After this weekend's carnage in Gaza, to say Bush's promise of peace in his time is a tall order is an understatement for all times. He's got 323 days left. And given the Bush administration's calamitous track record documented by Vanity Fair, the prospects aren't good.

324. That's the number of days left for George W. Bush to deliver on his January pledge of a signed Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. But what seemed like Bush's cockeyed optimism just weeks ago now verges on fantasy. With Israeli forces and Hamas fighters battling in Gaza, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday announced the suspension of peace talks. As a result, President Bush's better-late-than-never engagement seems certain to be added to his eve-growing list of foreign policy failures.

Bush's boast came during his first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in January. While his discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas failed to advance the much-hyped Annapolis process launched in November, President Bush confidently predicted an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty would be signed within one year:

"I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office...I'm on a timetable. I've got 12 months."

Analysts and interested parties of all stripes could be forgiven their skepticism. Even after essentially adopting the Clinton formula he previously rejected (including compensation to Palestinian refugees instead of the "right of return"), Bush faced a tough road with Hamas. (The fact that the official State Department chronology of the Middle East peace process never mentions Hamas doesn't help matters any.) Predictably, Hamas prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, labeled Bush's proposals "unacceptable." Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Birzeit University, concluded simply, "It will be extremely difficult for any Palestinian leader to accept all three [no return to the '67 borders, no return for refugees, no return of all East Jerusalem]."

Speaking at Princeton University on Friday, Jordan's King Abdullah was guardedly optimistic about the prospects for a Middle East peace.

"We are in the best possible position to resolve 60 years of conflict between Israel and Palestine. The Arab and Muslim states have committed to an unprecedented and unanimous peace initiative...But time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."

But Abdullah's remarks also contained a warning. Failure by the Bush administration to achieve a comprehensive settlement, he said, could see the peace process "set back, perhaps for decades."

And that assessment, sadly, came before the recent explosion of violence in Gaza.

Even as Abdullah was headed to the United States, the Israelis were threatening an invasion of Gaza after recent Hamas rocket attacks on Sderot and Ashkelon. On Saturday, the IDF sent its troops into Gaza. Over 100 people have been killed in the subsequent fighting.

Just two weeks after Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas last met, the rhetoric on both sides is rapidly escalating. On Saturday, Olmert spokesman Mark Regev stated, "You can't overstate the importance of the shooting on Ashkelon", adding, "This is a major Israeli city that is now being targeted by the rockets." On Sunday, Olmert told his cabinet, "With all due respect, nothing will prevent us from continuing operations to protect our citizens." And in an interview on Army Radio, Barak proclaimed "overthrowing the Hamas government" as one of the goals of the Israeli operation.

The response from both Abbas' Fatah government and its Hamas rivals has been fierce - and hyperbolic. Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said: "This is a massacre of civilians, women and children - genocide." Abbas himself declared, "The response to these rockets can't be that harsh and heinous," adding, "It is nowadays described as a holocaust." And in Damascus, exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal called the Israeli incursion "the real Holocaust."

Diplomatic efforts are struggling to keep with the violence spiraling out of control in Gaza. The UN Security Council called on both sides to "to immediately cease all acts of violence," while General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon accused Israel of using "excessive force."

For its part, the Bush administration is preparing to dispatch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice back to the region. But while halting the violence is challenge enough, the prospects of getting the Annapolis process back on track seem remote. As for President Bush's promise to negotiate a signed peace agreement by the time he leaves office, time is running out.

He only has 324 days left.

UPDATE: As of Monday morning, Israel has halted its operations in Gaza, at least for now.

In a rare moment of humility, President Bush during this morning's press conference acknowledged that he knew little about Russian President Vladimir Putin's hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Responding to NBC reporter David Greg's dubious assertion that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama seemed to know much about Medvedev, Bush owned up to his own ignorance, "I don't know much about Medvedev, either." President Bush's sheepishness is justified. After all, in the run-up to his 2000 election, then candidate George W. Bush showed a comic - and tragic - ignorance of major world leaders.

While Bush was able to name Taiwan's President Lee, he drew a blank on the leaders of India and Chechnya. The neophyte Bush's squirming only increased when it came to Pakistan. As the BBC recalled:

But then came the crunch question: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Mr Bush needed a breather. "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots," the reporter tried to put his victim at ease.

"The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent," the Republican candidate offered.

Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: "Can you name him?"

"General. I can't name the general. General" was all Mr Bush had to offer.

Bush, who has repeatedly joked about his preference for dictatorship over democracy, has apparently been sticking to his line on Musharraf ("this guy is going to bring stability to the country") ever since. He just didn't know his name yet.

Sadly, George W. Bush's struggles with the international landscape didn't end there. Just four months later in March 2000, Bush was delighted to learn from a reporter that he had received the ringing endorsement of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine:

"Prime Minister Jean Poutine said he wouldn't endorse any candidate in this election, now he says he believes George W. Bush is the man to lead the free world into the 21st century."

Bush warmly accepted his endorsement:

"He understands I want to make sure our relationship with our most important neighbour to the north of us is strong and we'll work closely together."

There were a few problems, of course. The prime minister of Canada was Jean Chretien, not Jean Poutine. "Poutine" is a popular regional food of Quebec, a dish of french fries, gravy and cheese curds. Bush, simply too ignorant regarding our neighbor to the north, fell hook, line and sinker for a prank by This Hour Has 22 Minutes star Rick Mercer.

Presidential candidates can't be expected to know every detail about every leader of every country. (President Clinton acknowledged as much when he threw Bush a lifeline after Dubya's November 1999 fiasco, "If Mr Bush is president he will soon enough learn their names.") In Tuesday's MSNBC Democratic debate, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama showed that even without looking in his eyes and knowing his soul, they knew a great deal about Dmitry Medvedev, if not how to pronounce his name.

But unlike George W. Bush 8 years earlier, at least they knew what it was.

That the United States would come to grief in the Balkans under Bush's leadership was foreseeable back in 1999. Bush at first refused to back President Clinton's air war against the Milosevic regime's campaign of terror against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. As he explained to Talk Magazine in 1999, Bush's first problem was not strategic but geographic:

"Nobody needs to tell me what I believe. But I do need somebody to tell me where Kosovo is."

Bush, of course, later came around and supported the U.S. strikes against Belgrade. (Not before criticizing Bill Clinton's lack of an "exit strategy," an ironic foreshadowing his own subsequent Iraq misadventure.)

But the real warning signs that Bush knew little - and cared less - about the impact of Kosovo's looming declaration of independence came last June during his visit to neighboring Albania.

Even as President Bush basked in the warm embrace of Albanians grateful for American support of Kosovo independence and Albanian membership in NATO, he still struggled to understand the policy he claims to advocate. Bush told the Albanians, "At some point in time, sooner rather than later, you've got to say, 'Enough is enough - Kosovo is independent.'" During his Albanian visit, President Bush said he supported bringing the UN Security Council talks on Kosovo independence to an end, "In terms of a deadline, there needs to be one. It needs to happen." But as the New York Times reported, within 24 hours Bush backed off his tough talk, lest he once again run afoul of Russian opposition at the UN.

But on Sunday, Mr. Bush tried to backtrack when asked when that deadline might be. "First of all, I don't think I called for a deadline," Mr. Bush said, during a press appearance with Mr. Berisha in the courtyard of a government ministry building. He was reminded that he had.

"I did?" he asked, sounding surprised. "What exactly did I say? I said deadline? O.K., yes, then I meant what I said." The reporters laughed.

Speaking in Tanzania during his African tour this week, President Bush downplayed the impact of the Kosovo announcement and the need for immendiate and intense diplomacy to defuse Russian opposition to Serbia's loss of its ancient province. As the Washington Post detailed:

"There's a disagreement but we believe as many other nations do that history will prove this to be the correct move."

"We have been in close consultation with the Russians all along," said Bush on Tuesday in Tanzania when asked about Russia's critical reaction to the Kosovo independence.

Asked about timing of the declaration and whether there was any effort to smooth things over with Russia, Bush said: "We worked with the European nations. This strategy was well-planned."

As it turns out, not so much.

As the UN scrambled to reestablish border security posts between Serbia and Kosovo, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the EU's new 1,800 man mission in Kosovo "illegal." On the ground, Serb mobs are trying force a de facto partition of northern Kosovo, apparently with the tacit support of Belgrade. Even as Russia pledges to use its Security Council veto to block Kosovo's admission into the United Nations, the moderate pro-western Serbian government of Boris Tadic faces growing pressure from nationalist opponents his party barely defeated in the recent elections. Meanwhile, China and Spain, among other countries concerned about the national aspirations of their own regional minorities, joined Russia in their opposition to Saturday's unilateral declaration.

The Economist is likely right that Kosovo's independence was inevitable and that its people could not be indefinitely held in a state of limbo. But managing global reaction and the predictable emotional tide in Serbia accompanying the undoing of hundreds of history is a delicate diplomatic task for the international community and especially for President George W. Bush. That, of course, has never been his strong suit.

Unphased by it all, Bush told reporters in Dar es Salam on Tuesday:

"What you may be interested in knowing is that we have been in close consultation with the Russians all along. This wasn't a surprise to Russia. And you know, today's announcement is simply putting an exclamation point onto a series of announcements that have been made over the last 24 hours.

Thank you all very much. See you in Rwanda."

By Thursday, the American embassy in Belgrade was burning.

Generations yet unborn will speak of the intellectual confusion of George W. Bush. But no issue may be more emblematic of President Bush's ongoing cognitive crises than Kosovo and the 1999 American intervention to end ethnic cleansing there.

Speaking yesterday at, of all places, the Rwanda genocide museum, President Bush defended American inaction in Darfur, declaring that "outside forces" are "unbelievably counterproductive." Yet just 24 hours earlier, Bush announced his support for the independence of Kosovo and proclaimed Bill Clinton's 1999 decision to use American military force there "a correct move":

"There's a disagreement but we believe as many other nations do that history will prove this to be the correct move."

Sadly, George W. Bush didn't always feel this way. Back in 1999 then Governor Bush dragged his feet in supporting President Clinton's air war against Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of genocide in Kosovo. As he explained to Talk Magazine in 1999, Bush's first problem was not strategic but geographic:

"Nobody needs to tell me what I believe. But I do need somebody to tell me where Kosovo is."

As the Houston Chronicle reported in April, 1999, national media took Bush to task for faint-heartedness when it came to Kosovo.

Newsweek said of Bush: "GOP front-runner equivocates over bombing. Make up your mind, Nacho Man!" And the conservative Wall Street Journal called Bush's original stance on Kosovo "so vague and tepid as to be almost Clintonian." Numerous other pundits have chimed in with similar remarks.

Facing growing political pressure to match GOP White House rival John McCain's vocal support for Clinton's Kosovo policy, Bush eventually offered some of his trademark tough talk after the fact. It was only after two weeks into the bombing campaign that the future "decider" found his spine:

"I'm concerned that a thug like Milosevic, if left unchecked, would set a bad example for other 'ethnic cleansers' or other people willing to commit ethnic genocide."

The politics of necessity may have required Bush to come around and back Bill Clinton's war to save Kosovo, but the Texas governor maintained his opposition to so-called nation-building. In the 2000 presidential debates will Al Gore, Bush listed Kosovo as among the places where he supported Clinton's use of force. But in the October 11th debate, Bush restated his unchanging position on using American military power for nation-building:

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war."

Unchanging, that is, until the war in Iraq. As ThinkProgress noted, then-candidate George W. Bush pressed for an exit strategy and a timetable for withdrawal from Kosovo:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." (April 9, 1999)

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." (June 5, 1999)

Fast forward to June 2007. Even as President Bush basked in the warm embrace of Albanians grateful for American support of Kosovo independence and Albanian membership in NATO, he still struggled to understand the policy he claims to advocate. Bush told the Albanians, "At some point in time, sooner rather than later, you've got to say, 'Enough is enough - Kosovo is independent.'" During his Albanian visit, President Bush said he supported bringing the UN Security Council talks on Kosovo independence to an end, "In terms of a deadline, there needs to be one. It needs to happen." But as the New York Times reported, within 24 hours Bush backed off his tough talk, lest he once again run afoul of Russian opposition at the UN.

But on Sunday, Mr. Bush tried to backtrack when asked when that deadline might be. "First of all, I don't think I called for a deadline," Mr. Bush said, during a press appearance with Mr. Berisha in the courtyard of a government ministry building. He was reminded that he had.

"I did?" he asked, sounding surprised. "What exactly did I say? I said deadline? O.K., yes, then I meant what I said." The reporters laughed.

But for President Bush, none of his contradictions and ignorance over Kosovo policy past or present matter now. Scorned at home and despised in Europe, George W. Bush still gets a warm welcome in two places on earth. One, of course, is Africa, where his generous if cynical AIDS program is much beloved. The other is in Albania, where Bush is credited for liberating their Kosovar cousins from the Serbs.

All in all, not a bad result for a guy who waffled greatly on Bill Clinton's Kosovo policy and understood it even less.

Greeted in Africa by banners proclaiming "Thank you for helping fight malaria and HIV," President Bush championed his commitment to doubling to $30 billion the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). But as ever, those funds come with strings attached, courtesy of Bush's base.

One-third of all prevention spending under Bush' program must go to abstinence-until-marriage programs. Senate Democrats want to remove that provision, which has been criticized by both the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the Government Accountability Office. Of course, despite the miserable track record of abstinence programs worldwide, President Bush is undeterred and demanded Congress support "what works" in Africa. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

"It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program: abstinence, be faithful, and condoms. It's a program that's been proven effective," he said, speaking at a news conference with Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, an enthusiastic supporter of the effort.

"I understand there's voices on both ends of the political spectrum trying to alter the program," Bush said.

"I would ask Congress to listen to leaders on the continent of Africa...analyze what works, stop the squabbling and get the program reauthorized," he said.

While that battle continues at home, President Bush's AIDS diplomacy provides an excellent distraction from American challenges abroad. As Bush revels in the warm welcome he is receiving in Africa, tensions with Russia are rising in the wake of Kosovo's declaration of independence. Meanwhile, Bush ally Pervez Musharraf awaits election results in Pakistan, a vote delayed by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The pattern by now is familiar one. Last May, Bush tried to deflect criticism of American global warming policy in advance of an imminent G8 summit. Just days before, Bush announced his new proposal for $30 billion in U.S. funding for AIDS programs around the world. In 2003, of course, his problem was the looming Iraq war.

It was U2 frontman Bono who offered President Bush the prospect of a global American public relations triumph in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by announcing a massive commitment to fighting AIDS:

"Maybe it's smart to just help people with these crushing problems. These drugs are great advertisements for us in the West, for our ingenuity, our technology, our innovation, particularly in the United States. I said that to President Bush. I said, 'Paint them red, white and blue if you want, but these drugs are the best advertisement you are going to get right now, and that might be important right now.'"

Shortly thereafter, President Bush shocked the world by announcing a five-year, $15 billion dollar AIDS program for Africa and the Caribbean in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Later, he would tap First Lady Laura Bush as his global AIDS ambassador.

That aid, of course, came with strings attached. Only $1 billion would go to the UN's Global AIDS Fund. Over $1 billion would be distributed through faith-based organizations, such as Graham's Samaritan's Purse. Worse still, the Bush administration and allies such as Kansas Senator Sam Brownback followed the lead these religious groups in balking at the use of condoms (the "C" in the Ugandan ABC formula of "Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms"). As a result, Brazil declined to accept Americans AIDS funding which barred programs involving condoms. Pioneering Ugandan AIDS activist Noerine Kaleeba could only ponder in amazement:

"I have met President Bush twice. He strikes me as a very brilliant, very passionate and very caring person. But when I contrast the President Bush that I have met with the policies and practices that are coming out of the United States, I can't reconcile it."

By now, of course, it is very easy to reconcile the timing and content of Bush's generous AIDS crusade. As the history shows, President Bush opens the purse strings as politics foreign and domestic require. And as ever, Bush's faith-based followers control those purse strings. So even as he tries in his final days in office to cement his legacy as the friend of Africa, George W. Bush is always thinking about his friends - and enemies - back home.

While George W. Bush may be a recovering drinker, he apparently has now developed a gambling problem. Just 10 days into 2008, the Bush White House has placed big bets on everything from a Middle East peace treaty to the prospects for a U.S. recession, even his own popularity and legacy. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against him - and us.

Bush's most unlikely roll of the dice came during his just completed visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories. While his discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas failed to advance the much-hyped Annapolis process, President Bush confidently predicted an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty would be signed within one year:

"I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office...I'm on a timetable. I've got 12 months."

Analysts and interested parties of all stripes could be forgiven their skepticism. Even after essentially adopting the Clinton formula he previously rejected including (compensation to Palestinian refugees instead of the "right of return"), Bush faces a tough road with Hamas. (The fact that the official State Department chronology of the Middle East peace process never mentions Hamas doesn't help matters any.) Predictably, Hamas prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, labeled Bush's proposals "unacceptable." Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Birzeit University, concluded simply, "It will be extremely difficult for any Palestinian leader to accept all three [no return to the '67 borders, no return for refugees, no return of all East Jerusalem]."

Back at home, economic analysts and Wall Street watchers are growing increasingly worried about the prospects of a recession in the U.S. The dismal housing market, the jump in unemployment to 5%, $100 a barrel oil and record-low consumer confidence are combining to produce grim economic forecasts for 2008.

But not at the Bush White House. Despite an emerging consensus about the dangers looming for the U.S. economy, White House spokesman Tony Fratto on Monday said the Bush administration sees no recessionary icebergs ahead.

QUESTION: Senator Clinton said on Saturday that the U.S. economy was slipping towards a recession. Is that a view the White House shares; why or why not?

FRATTO: I don't know of anyone predicting a recession.

As ThinkProgress documents, Warren Buffett, Lawrence Summers, Martin Feldstein, the National Association for Business Economics and CBO chief Peter Orzag are just some of the names predicting that a recession is "more likely than not." But on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson contradicted the assessment of his own former employer, Goldman Sachs. While Paulson claimed, "I think that we're facing some strong headwinds, but the economy's going to continue to grow," Goldman Sachs concluded the next day that "the latest data suggest that recession has now arrived, or will very shortly." (On Thursday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke took the unusual step of telegraphing future interest rate cuts "to counter any adverse dynamics that might threaten economic or financial stability.")

Just in case, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez assured Americans last week, "the president is always looking at options." Chief among those options, of course, is tax cuts, President Bush's one-size-fits all solution for deficits, surpluses, expansion, recession and probably even the common cold.

Despite the unending bad news for President Bush regarding Iraq, the economy, corruptions scandals and more, his allies are offering another mind-bending prediction. As US News detailed, the White House and the GOP are forecasting Bush's approval rating will catapult from its perpetually dismal plateau in the 30's to a merely awful 45% by the time he leaves office:

His fans have dubbed it his "legacy year," when they hope to lock in his achievements on the domestic front. Among the items Bush's GOP congressional allies want to work on this month: continuing his tax cuts and extending the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. As for the war, they say, the news has been good, and Bushies believe that their guy will eventually get credit for opening the war on terrorism. But more immediately, they are predicting a remarkable poll shift to about 45 percent favorable by the time he leaves office next year.

Just before departing on his trip to the Middle East, President Bush offered the ultimate prediction. While Bush earlier described his mission to "replenish the ol' coffers" after leaving the White House, last Friday he gazed into the crystal ball regarding his legacy:

"I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions."

That, of course, is yet one more bet George W. Bush will lose. But having previously gambled with Americans' lives, treasure and international standing, President Bush has already made losers of us all.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has given the White House hopefuls of both parties ample opportunities for grandstanding. While Hillary Clinton predictably played up her past relationship with Bhutto, John McCain touted his foreign policy experience. The co-chair of New Hampshire's Veterans for Rudy Giuliani declared his candidate would chase Muslims "back to their caves." But for the most disturbing - and ironic - reaction, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is in a class by himself.

Bhutto was killed, Huckabee suggested, because she posed a threat to the fundamentalist vision of the role of women. That vision, it turns out, is not far from his own.

In Iowa on Friday, Huckabee with no apparent sense of irony offered his analysis of the forces that led to Bhutto's doom. As the Huffington Post reported:

Huckabee called Bhutto's death a tragedy, but he suggested she had been a threat to Islamic fundamentalists. "An educated, sophisticated, strong, capable woman leader -- that does pose a threat to those who don't believe that women should be given that platform and that level of equality," Huckabee said.

Americans could be forgiven for their confusion. Huckabee, after all, has made it clear that he himself is one of those "don't believe that women should be given that platform and that level of equality." As I noted previously, in 1998 then Governor Huckabee was one of 131 signatories on a full page ad in USA Today which praised the Southern Baptist Convention, for among other things, its defense of traditional marriage and the subservient position of women. The ad declared:

"You are right because you called husbands to sacrificially love and lead their wives.

You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership.

More importantly, you are right because your statement is based on biblical truth."

Sadly, Huckabee's outrages in the wake of the Bhutto assassination don't end there. On Thursday, the GOP frontrunner again confirmed his foreign policy neophyte status by stating the U.S. needs to consider "what impact does it have on whether or not there's going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan." Reprising his ignorance of the Iran NIE, Huckabee seemed blissfully unaware that Pervez Musharraf lifted martial law restrictions in Pakistan two weeks ago. On Friday, Huckabee suggested that the attack on Bhutto in Rawalpindi, Pakistan required the profiling of Pakistanis coming to the United States:

"We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."

Even as Benazir Bhutto was laid to rest in Pakistan, the U.S. and Musharraf government claimed the assassination was the work of extremists. As Perrspectives documented here and here, Mike Huckabee should know one when he sees one.

UPDATE: Ignoring the old dictum that when in a hole, one should stop digging, the Huckabee campaign continued to embarrass itself in the wake of the Bhutto assassination. After first offering his "apologies" rather his sympathies to the Pakistani people, Governor Huckabee failed geography 101 in placing Afghanistan to the east of Pakistan. In his defense, a Huckabee aide admitted his man has "no foreign policy credentials."

The similarities between President Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, it would appear, are seemingly endless. On Wednesday. Putin followed in Bush's footsteps as the 2007 recipient of the Time Man of the Year. And now, Putin too has grand plans to reap a financial windfall upon leaving office. As it turns out, though, the scope and scale of Putin's post-presidential avarice puts George W. Bush to shame.

As we learned from Bush biographer Robert Draper back in September, the President is looking forward to cashing in just as soon as he leaves the Oval Office. As the New York Times recounted:

First, Mr. Bush said, "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers." With assets that have been estimated as high as nearly $21 million, Mr. Bush added, "I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75" thousand dollars a speech, and "Clinton's making a lot of money."

Then he said, "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Last week, departing Mississippi Senator Trent Lott provided more speculative fodder regarding Bush's life after the White House. As the Washington Post detailed on Wednesday:

This week, as Lott was preparing to retire from the Senate, he found himself yukking it up with the president at the White House.

Lott told On the Hill that Bush even joked that he may join the Mississippian in the lobbying sector. Lott is considering going to work with longtime friend John Breaux, the former Democratic senator from Louisiana who bolted from the Patton Boggs lobbying firm to launch his own shop starting next month.

But Bush's plans pale in comparison to the ill-gotten riches awaiting his "good friend" Vladimir Putin at the conclusion of his days in the Kremlin. As the Guardian, the Washington Post and other outlets have reported, Putin has secured a fortune which may approach $40 billion.

With his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev in line to replace him as President, Putin is seeking to reap the rewards of his relationships with Russia's energy oligarchs even as continues to pull the strings behind the scenes. As the Guardian detailed on Friday, Putin is fighting to secure multi-billion assets in Swiss banks and off-shore accounts:

Citing sources inside the president's administration, [Russian political expert Stanislav] Belkovsky claims that after eight years in power Putin has secretly accumulated more than $40bn...The sum would make him Russia's - and Europe's - richest man.

In an interview with the Guardian, Belkovsky repeated his claims that Putin owns vast holdings in three Russian oil and gas companies, concealed behind a "non-transparent network of offshore trusts".

Putin "effectively" controls 37% of the shares of Surgutneftegaz, an oil exploration company and Russia's third biggest oil producer, worth $20bn, he says. He also owns 4.5% of Gazprom, and "at least 75%" of Gunvor, a mysterious Swiss-based oil trader, founded by Gennady Timchenko, a friend of the president's, Belkovsky alleges.

That is what George W. Bush would call replenishing the 'ol coffers. It's no wonder the failed energy executive turned American president said of his Russian counterpart in 2001:

"I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul. I knew that President Putin was a man with whom I could work."