Houston Chronicle media Critique: "Bush, Belatedly, Gets Middle East Right" : Houston Indymedia

Houston Chronicle columnist Cragg Hines' editorial "Bush, belatedly, gets Middle East right" applauds Bush's demands for the ouster of Arafat. I fail to see any cause for celebration for a policy tangential to any solutions. Bush's speech appears as little more than another step towards the legitimization of the previously covert policy of installing U.S. backed leaders around the world by force.
Hines states "Bush simply described a new Palestinian leadership that could not include Arafat: a leadership that is not 'compromised by terror,' that has not consigned its people to 'economic stagnation' nor made the situation worse by 'official corruption.'"
Conspicuously lacking from Bush's harangue of the pot calling the kettle black was the term "un-elected," perhaps because Arafat won the last election, more than Bush can say. I wish Hines would point out all the criticisms he makes of Arafat which could apply equally to Bush. For example, Hines refers to Arafat as "reptilian," but fails to use the adjective "chimpazical" for Bush.
Turning to the essence of the editorial, Hines states, "Is Bush's plan perfect? No, especially in its failure to point out more clearly the complicity of other Arab and Islamic nations in the Palestinians' poverty and terrorism. It may take someone tougher than Secretary of State Colin Powell to explain to U.S. "friends" in the region, especially the Saudis, that they need to get on board or at least to keep quiet -- and, in either instance, be prepared to pony up some big bucks. "
So, the biggest hole in Bush's "plan" is not that it does nothing to end the mutual killing of civilians by Israelis and Palestinians funded and supplied on the Israeli side by U.S. tax dollars? The biggest hole is that Colin Powell isn't tough enough to threaten not only our official enemies but also our allies into supporting our policies whether they agree or not?
Hines says nothing about the contradiction in granting Palestine the autonomy implied in statehood, while requiring U.S. approval of the leaders.
Hines concludes that "Bush has now spelled out just how unacceptable Arafat is as a partner for peacemaking. If the United States is, as many in the region and beyond believe, an essential element for moving forward, they now have been told the current administration's key condition for leading the exercise."
Well, choose one or the other Mr. Hines! Is the U.S. an invited arbiter threatening to cease mediating unless certain preconditions are met, or is the U.S. a heavily invested, interested party threatening military and economic punishments for those who want us out? It would be difficult to explain to the civilians in Palestinian refugee camps being shot at by U.S. tanks that we are leading an "exercise" in "peacemaking."