In reading the 1559 resolution and the draft as it's currently constructed, there are a lot of similarities, quite frankly.
And I'm wondering if you could speak to, maybe, the frustration some Americans might be feeling that you've said, We want sustainable peace; we don't want to come back here in a few months or a few years, and yet it seems like there will be another resolution, maybe another resolution, maybe another this, that and the other. People get frustrated.
Can you understand that? I just want to ask that.
Here's Bush's answer:
We thought we had done so with 1559, but 1559 wasn't implemented. In other words, there was a way forward to deal with the problem.So is this just more yakking? Or will something be achieved with yet another UN resolution? I vote the former--the UN has been there since 1978 after all. But I also think that a lot of what Bush and Condi are doing at the UN is looking busy; that is they're giving the appearance of "working hard" at the UN and insisting that "the violence must stop" while allowing Israel to continue its campaign in the hopes that Israel can sufficiently wound Hezbollah before the "international community" steps in and demands a ceasefire.
And now there's another chance to deal with the problem. And that's the role of the United States, working with others, to not only remind people about the problem but to come up with solutions in dealing with the problem.
And the solutions that we are working with our friends, in our judgment, is the best hope for achieving stability and peace.
But it take a lot of work. And it takes commitment and focus. And that's what this administration will continue to do: We'll stay focused on the problem and stay focused on coming up with solutions that, when implemented, will leave behind a better world.
Whether it will work or not is a whole 'nother question.