Is It All Bush's Fault?

Whether or not this is "World War III," in Newt Gingrich's phrase, the violence in the Middle East is straining the abilities of the media machine--and maybe our ability to absorb bad news.

The constant escalation of the battles between Israel and both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is beginning to devastate Lebanon and now has missiles landing in Haifa, is putting the cable news channels on a war footing. Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson have gone to the Mideast, joining the likes of Anderson Cooper. But there's still a split-screen mentality on the morning shows, with segments on new Marilyn Monroe photos ("Good Morning America") and diets ("Today") competing with war coverage.

Overshadowed, for the moment, is the carnage in Iraq (Suicide Blast Kills 26 gets a short AP wire on Page A-12 of yesterday's Post); the nuclear showdown with North Korea; the nuclear showdown with Iran, and the bombing of trains in India. It does seem, to the untrained eye, that the world is falling apart as fast as the ceiling panels in Boston's Big Dig tunnel.

But as the debate rages over why the terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon precipitated this crisis by attacking Israeli soldiers, and whether Israel's military response could lead to a full-blown regional war, there is one question starting to bubble up in partisan circles in America, and one that you'll have no trouble recognizing:

Is it all Bush's fault?

Could the president have done something to prevent this? And why isn't he doing much now, other than using the S-word with Tony Blair in front of an open mike? (More on that in a moment.)

Our polarized political system simply doesn't allow for the idea that ancient enemies could be at war halfway around the world without the U.S. either bearing some responsibility or having the ability to shut it down. The White House must have miscalculated, not been engaged enough, screwed things up by invading Iraq.

Here is what some liberals are saying. Josh Marshall : "What stands out to me right now is the seeming irrelevance and marginality of the United States.

"Where is America? Whoever you believe is right or wrong in this mess, I doubt very much that the powers directly involved have the will and ability to de-escalate the situation. Some want to. Others don't . . .

"Some might say that the Bush administration's silence is acquiescence or approval of the Israeli raids into Lebanon and Gaza. But I think it's more than that. This is silence born of over-extension and policy exhaustion. Thinking back through the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s -- with key crises in each decade -- I don't think there's any example where an American administration has so thoroughly marginalized itself or shown such impotence and irrelevance."

Arianna Huffington : "Given the tragic feel of recent events, his tone couldn't have been more false.

"It's a very sinking feeling, watching this all-hat, no-cattle puppet who was put in power by the GOP elite back in a very different time, when all it thought we needed was a CEO to help manage the good times, suddenly finding himself presiding over a series of cataclysmic events.