Is Ignatius an ignoramous?

In his Denver Post Column of April 13th, David Ignatius derides President Bush for endorsing Prime Minister Sharon’s Security Plan. Ignatius would prefer an American leader who maintains the “high ground” of a neutral mediator over one who actually sides with America’s ally, Israel. Like his fellow Liberals, Ignatius is more comfortable with continued diplomacy as opposed to moving the “ball down the field”. This is the case whether the issue is Middle East Peace, Social Security reform, adding an Rx benefit to Medicare or laying down the law with renegade outlaws such as Moqtada Sadr and his gang. The more enlightened “nuanced” crowd much prefers to have the issue rather than to address the problem. Standing off on the sidelines contemplating and complaining is a lot easier than committing to a course of action and then accepting the political consequences later.
The recent 911 Commission hearings have revealed that when terrorists attacked US interests during the Clinton Administration, their solution was to have another meeting. The more senior the officials in attendance, the better they were able to examine all aspects of the issues involved and the smarter they then hoped to appeared in the subsequent Media coverage
Ignatius concludes by saying, that 6 previous presidents over 2 centuries were successful because they “sat on the fence” with regard to the Israelis & Palestinians, but that Bush’s plain talk may be harmful to the nation’s security. In my opinion, the Palestinians have proven themselves unwilling to reject terror and the terrorist among them. Sharon’s plan will improve Israeli security and Bush’s endorsement enhances the possibility of an eventual 2 state solution. In the meantime, David Ignatius will continue the time-tested mantra of good Liberals everywhere - talk, talk, talk!