Via Paul Mirengoff at Power Line, more bad news:

We’ve been unhappy lately with some of President Bush’s appointees. Generally, the problem has been lack of relevant experience and, perhaps, cronyism. Today, though, I want to focus on a Bush appointee who makes me unhappy precisely because of his relevant experience. I’m referring to the new ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones.

Paul points to an excellent and depressing column on Jones and other woeful Bush decisions by the Washington Times’ Diana West:

Whatever happened to George W. Bush’s raison d’etre — namely, that we oppose terror networks and the countries that support them? Maybe the answer lies in what passes for tea leaves these days — as in the fact that the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s right-hand man on Iraq, has “roots in the Arab world so deep,” reports the Washington Post, “that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa — for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world.” Explains Mr. Jones: “Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too.” Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?

Read the whole thing.