Despite all the ink that has been spilled over George W. Bush's remarks in Israel, nothing that I have read so far, captures what I believe happened during Bush's trip to the Knesset. Let me offer my view:

Unlike Dick Cheney, who wears his unpopularity with the American people like a badge of merit, President Bush, despite his game facade, is deeply wounded that seven years into his presidency, he is setting new records for disapproval. A recent CNN poll found that while Bush's 28% approval rating hovers slightly above that of Richard Nixon (24%) and Harry Truman (22%), Bush's disapproval figure of 71% surpasses Truman's all-time high of 67%, qualifying Bush as the most unpopular president since the inception of polling. Worse, our current president is increasingly compared, unfavorably, to his own father, a one-time president who is seen as a "wimp" by many in his own party. Such disapproval has to rankle the president, a gladhanding good-ole-boy known for handing out pet names to members of the press.

It is with this backdrop that Bush traveled to Israel, one of the few countries on the planet where he is still held in high regard. Instead of the usual protests and demonstrations, in Israel Bush was greeted with bouquets. Here is how the International Herald Tribune put it:

Israeli officials have heaped accolades on Bush during his time here, a pattern that continued Thursday when Dalia Itzik, the speaker of the Knesset, said Bush was "a great friend, one of the greatest we've ever had."

Understandably, when he gave his speech to the Knesset, Bush was basking in the warm glow of Israeli support, standing before a community that finally understood him, that realized that he was not stubborn, incompetent, or over his head in foreign affairs, but rather strong, tough-minded and visionary. So enveloped in the bosom of Israeli support was Bush, that he lost all perspective, and had what I call a "Dixie Chick moment," a sudden loss of perspective when one feels so in tune with one's foreign audience, that one forgets how one's remarks will be greeted back home. As the president decided to play historian, here were his fateful comments:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

In a matter of a few seconds, not only did Bush manage to stir up a hornet's nest in the U.S., he also managed to encapsulate in one paragraph everything that has been wrong with the Bush foreign policy. Let's look not at the politics of his comments, but at the merits:

When Bush refers to "some ingenious argument," he has already veered off track. Diplomacy does not consist of "ingenious arguments" that swiftly and magically win over the opposition. Diplomacy is a long, hard, incremental, adult process that takes place over time and is marked by peaks and valleys, periods of frustration and success. Bush seems to have a digital view of negotiation; it is a one-shot effort that either works or it doesn't. Throughout his two terms, the Bush approach to diplomacy has been marked by a kind of intellectual laziness. His initial conceit was that the Middle East region was going to be so overwhelmed by the "shock and awe" of American victory in Iraq, that democracy and American values would simply spread through the region like wildfire. Small wonder then, that we ignored the Middle East for most of Bush's presidency. Who needs negotiations when we can simply spread democracy through military means? Because of this naive fantasy, we wasted six years that could have been spent trying to improve Israeli-Palestinian relations.

A second problem with Bush-as-historian is his reference to "terrorists and radicals." It has become a standard ploy among politicians to play the "terrorist" card whenever they don't want to deal with a particular group or country. In fact, the use of this term has become an all purpose bogeyman. Was the Soviet Union during the Cold War any less "terrorist" than our adversaries today? Was it not state sponsored terrorism to have gulags in Siberia, to pervert psychiatry to the demands of politics, and to terrorize not only its own people, but those of the entire Eastern Bloc? Yet, in spite of this, we negotiated with the Soviets. Indeed, the whole notion of deterrence was based on such negotiations. Further, as a terrorist and radical, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is small potatoes compared to Mao tse Tung, who Nixon met with in 1972, the beginning of a new and healthier relationship with China. Currently, we've already negotiated with Libya's Khaddafi, formerly an avowed terrorist, causing him to foreswear his nuclear ambitions, and are knee deep in negotiations with Kim Jong Il. Given this, Bush's use of the "don't negotiate with the terrorists" line is preposterous and hypocritical.

The truth is, the entire Bush tenure has been marked by a phobia about diplomacy. Bush and company were dragged kicking and screaming into diplomacy with the North Koreans because of the gravity of Korea's nuclear development. and have recently only reluctantly and grudgingly started making overtures to the Iranians. The prevailing mindset in the Bush administration is that negotiation is for sissies. Real men get what they want by rattling sabers, or worse.

One of the most prominent conservative arguments against negotiating with countries like Iran is that high-level contacts between the two countries will only give the Ahmadinejads of the world more "prestige," making them stronger as adversaries. It is amazing how widespread this viewpoint is. The reality is just the opposite: We greatly enhance our own prestige by reaching out to negotiate with our adversaries.

The whole world looks to the US for diplomatic leadership, and is deeply disappointed when we drop the ball, as we have during the Bush administration. Further, critics of diplomacy with rogue regimes, ignore one of its most important benefits: When an American president, or high-level diplomat visits one of our adversaries, he is talking not just to the rulers of that country, but to its people as well. It is important to remember that one of our primary goals is to bolster the moderate elements that exist in rogue nations. Visiting a country and having tough, frank, and respectful negotiations with its leaders is a far more effective means of supporting its moderate factions than is standing on the sidelines engaging in name-calling. Memo to neocons everywhere: Regardless of how much the citizens of a country dislike their own leaders, they are still alienated and offended when outsiders mock, vilify, and demonize those leaders. They take it personally. That is why the Bush propensity for long-distance name-calling has been so counterproductive. That is why idiciocies like John McCain singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran," is so dumb and juvenile. That is why Hillary Clinton gratuitously reminding Iran that we can "obliterate" them, damages rather than furthers our interests.

Many commentators have already pointed out that conservatives have played the "appeasement" card during virtually diplomatic advance since the 1950's, from Eisenhower's first meeting with Khrushchev, to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the SALT treaties and beyond. Unabashed by how many times they've been wrong, they continue to play this card, despite the obvious fact that talk not only is not appeasement, talk is the centerpiece of a civilized society

Finally, let me offer a few words about John McCain's toxic statement that Barack Obama is the candidate of Hamas. McCain intended his remark as a below-the-belt swipe at Obama's judgment and patriotism. It is the height of foolishness from McCain that American voters should base their decisions on what our adversaries say about our political candidates. If Al Qaeda issued a statement saying that George Bush was their worst enemy, would that mean he deserved a third term? Of course not. Whatever his intention may have been, whatever Osama Bin Laden might say about him, for the last six years Bush has been the greatest recruiting vehicle that Al Qaeda has ever had.

Moreover, in trying to tie Obama to Hamas, McCain completely missed the point. Hamas aside, Obama is the favored candidate of the entire international community. If there were a world-wide referendum on our presidency, Obama would trounce McCain. He would win in England, he would win in France, he would win in Canada, he would win throughout the world, precisely because he has had the same inspirational effect overseas that he has had at home. The international community is looking for diplomatic leadership. It is to Barack Obama's credit that he has had the insight to see through the "appeasement" trap.