Apparently Bush is not supposed to be doing "enough" in the Mideast crisis, and is being pushed to get more involved by the Democrats.

An amusing note: whenever an organized attack is generated by the Democratic machine, a "buzz word" is often distributed, and suddenly every pundit, every newspaper, every talking head uses it. Remember "gravitas?"

Today's buzz word is (the duck drops down from the ceiling): "Disengagement." Along with the associated word, "engagement."

Proper use: Bush is "disengaged" from the Mideast crisis, or is not sufficiently "engaged."

Watch your liberal papers and news media and get extra points for spotting the word!

Proper use can be found here, and here. This article follows the party line, but loses points for not using the secret word.

All time winner is the lunatic James Carville--who of course might be expected to get the prize since he pretty much writes the Democratic playbook--in his Crossfire appearance from yesterday. Carville uses the term five times as he bashes Bush. Tom Daschle only manages to use the term three times, but it's hard to get a word in edgewise with Carville in the room.

Carville and Begala get a bonus point for referring to an "unelected president" in the actual presence of Tom Daschle, who only holds his current post by having shoved a Senator from column A to column B.

BTW, if you think it was easy wading through the combined bullcrap of Daschle and Carville in one load, not to mention the other idiots from both sides on this gasbag of a show, it wasn't. I do these things so you don't have to. God, no wonder Fox is eating their lunch.

* * *

Of course, the point here for the Democrats is not to have Bush actually solve the Mideast crisis, a prospect which would, if actually accomplished, have them hurling themselves from the top of the Washington Monument in a steady rain of politicians.

The purpose is to have him fail spectacularly. Anybody with a brain can see that having American presidents "engaged" in the Israeli/Palestinian war has accomplished exactly zip for decades. Clinton was "engaged" up to his neck, and it got him a humiliating defeat. Object of the game: get such a major defeat on Bush's scorecard in the currently high-scoring foreign policy category.

Bush, for his part, is hopefully beginning to realize that there may actually be nothing the U.S. can do here, although he still seems conflicted on the issue. Arafat, the closest thing the pile of gangsters loosely comprising the Palestinian war effort has to any kind of leader, is a thug, and has always been a thug. Yet we are being forced to treat him like the only hope for peace.

Bush must also be aware of the obvious hypocricy in restraining Israel while we mop up the Taliban for similar, if more extensive crimes.

The "engagment" thing is a booby trap. I hope he sees it. I wish I knew a clever way to avoid it.