Hope In Middle East: Did Bush do it?

In his Op-Ed Piece in today's NY Times, David Brooks argues that "We owe this cautiously hopeful moment [in the Middle East] . . . to a president who disregarded the received wisdom." The piece is sarcastic to the point of bitterness, arguing that what European governments and American intellectuals characterized as "unfortunate events" resulting from Bush's Middle East policies were actually the very events responsible for the present moment of cautious optimism.
This is like a golf fan who has grown bitter and angry at people making fun of his hero's consistently miserable play, crying: "He planned it that way!" when yet another errant shot hits a tree and bounces onto the green.

The most that can be said for Bush's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that he has not made things worse. In comparison to the rest of his foreign policy, of course, this is ineed a cause for some celebration. But it strikes me as preposterous -- and craven -- to suggest that it is President Bush who deserves credit for bringing about "this cautiously hopeful moment."