Thomas Oliphant calls George W. Bush's policies toward the mideast "passive" and "reactive" - no, seriously - while lauding the Carter years.

Oliphant's conclusion is frankly, virtually indecipherable:

What kind of impotent US passivity is Oliphant talking about? Massive cash infusions to the PA and American troop intervention are two of the worst ideas currently floating. Can anyone imagine an Arafat-dominated government being granted huge money infusions - the discovery that Arafat siphoned off $900million surely being the tip of the iceburg? Further, can anyone imagine US soldiers going door to door in Gaza rooting out terrorists? That's a fantasy who's fulfillment would prevent Israel from doing what it needs to do, with US troops serving as the Palestinians latest human shields, as well as serving as sitting ducks for whatever fanatic decides to strap on a bomb. It's not going to happen.

Jimmy Carter had an Egyptian leader who was strong, forward-looking and ready to lead his people to a peaceful future. Arafat is none of those things - quite the opposite, in fact. GWB and even Ariel Sharon are simoply dealing with the hand they've been dealt. Just as peace wasn't possible until Nasser was gone, expecting peace under Arafat is unrealistic and absent reality.

Now that Arafat is on notice that he himself will be held accountable for future attacks, a move President Carter and much of the world community opposes, we'll see how or even if the violence continues.

President Carter is a fine man who's humanitarian efforts do him great credit, but his foreign policy medling and pose as a critic of the current administration is misplaced and wrong-headed to say the least, and it's a shame he is taken seriously by so many.