It is good journalism with respect to the specific middle eastern international (yet regional) diplomacy conundrum whereby (as shown by several examples) the U.S.'s role has been marginalized (more correctly neutered). In that limited context, specific facts are clear and the column is good for the small picture intended.. In my opinion, however, I feel that the BIG picture may be glossed over, particularly by the statement "That absence reflects Bush's lame-duck status, experts said." My personal observations are that, not just in the Middle East, but globally this column DEMONSTRATES factually what many claim...that"respect for U.S. as an "honest broker" is terminal, not because of lame duck status, but because of ... More »

Wright is to be commended for presenting a cursery outline of two publicly known and official peace intiatives in the Middle East. Unfortunately however, the piece merely echoes the tired and perhaps ill-thought opinion that America should and must have an active role in Middle East politics.

Good wrap-up of another ultra conservative fiasco. Bush returned empty handed, his administration embarassing America again. The article states: "Just days after President Bush returned from the Middle East, the Middle East is moving beyond the Bush administration." The Middle East moving beyond the Bush administration? The world is moving beyond the Bush administration!

I think this is an excellent look beyond the usual Bush administration "talking points" to examine trends toward peace -- or at least more peaceful resolution - DESPITE the powers that be in the U.S. We need more context beyond what our government tells us.

Well articulated and analytical review how the advice of US have been ignored