Commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have gone on at some length about the significance of Bush's speech about the Middle East Morass. But apart from putting Bush in Sharon's camp-- where he already was-- is it really significant in the way that many have suggested? It looks more like a biding time speech to me, a speech given because GW felt that it was incumbent on him to say something, so that the press and others quit bugging him about it, and so that he shores up his approval rating. He didn't mention the Oslo Accords, or the Mitchell plan. So? Just as he thinks the Palistineans should accept provisional borders, he may have just failed to comment on Oslo and Mitchell because: A. Sharon would be displeased, and B. the speech itself is provisional.