The "Waiting Bush Out" Policy

 

It seems that Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and the Democratic party have the same strategy laid out for the immediate future. It's called "waiting Bush out".

Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.

Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.

The entire US recent history is explained by Tehran very much in accordance with the US 'cut and run' foreign policy, haunted by the ghost of Vietnam:

To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter." It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed to live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.

According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration," a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East." Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U.S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.

Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U.N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U.N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face," Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.

According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.

It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U.S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.

All I can say is good luck to Ahmadinejad's dream if Clinton gets in, she might just whip his proverbial behind. As for John Kerry, God help us all. He'll probably elect Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos as his adviser, which should bring the Thug-In-Chief closer to his current prediction, namely that the next President will admit defeat and order a retreat, as all of President Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.

For the span of a generation -- a longer period than the politically conscious lives of the great majority of people in the Arab and Muslim world -- America has fled from conflict in a part of the world where weakness earns contempt and begets more aggression, not less. On September 11, 2001 we reaped the whirlwind. So, whatever our strategy in the long war -- and you will read no argument here that it cannot be improved upon -- we must end Hassan Abbasi's helicopter metaphor. Helicopters can stand for different things. Let them no longer conjure the image of "fleeing Americans."

But not to worry, the Democrats have promised to make this country safe. Osama must be quaking in his sandals.Their national security agenda amounts to "we will do whatever President Bush is not doing". Er, ahem:

Let's get this straight. The Democrats want to retreat against al-Qaeda forces assembled in Iraq in order to invade Pakistan, which is where Osama is most likely spending his time. They want to run away from the operational forces of AQ in a fashion that will remind all of them of Somalia, Beirut, and Teheran -- proving Osama right about American tenacity. Going after Osama is a terrific goal, but unless they have a better plan than to flood Pakistan with special-forces teams and spies that Pervez Musharraf will consider an act of war, then this policy is doomed to failure.[...]

Slogans and Osama-baiting may well work for the Democrats, but in the end we will still wind up fighting the same people we fight now. Instead of fighting them in Samarra and Tal Afar, we will fight them in San Francisco and Washington, DC. We may well fight them in Pakistan, as well as the nuclear-armed Pakistanis, if we openly invade their territory to chase Osama bin Laden. That's not a plan for victory; it's an incoherent fantasy.

The Gateway Pundit is hoping that this is a new direction for them, and that they have put aside that:

* America's media is the enemy
* George Bush is the enemy
* personal property rights is the enemy
* Christians are the enemy
* Moderate Muslims are not the enemy
* Walmart is not the enemy
* Business is the enemy
* Republicans are the enemy
* The 10 Commandments are the enemy
* America is the enemy

...Who have I missed?

Needless to say Matt Margolis is not impressed, and Jeff Goldstein tells it how it is in a not to be missed post.

Bill Nienhuis:

When Democrats talk about a withdrawal from Iraq, its not about bringing troops home and preventing further death. It’s not about freeing the Iraqi people from U.S. occupation. It’s not about “playing nice” in the hopes that the French, Spanish and the Russians like us again. To Democrats, a withdrawal from Iraq is about stopping terrorism. They believe a redeployment of troops to other parts of the world sends a message of peace which will soften the hearts of terrorist groups and lessen the risk of further attacks. By pushing this ‘solution’ the Democrats do nothing to disprove the fact that they completely misunderstand the terrorist mentality.

Kim Priestap @ Wizbang has a list of the 'national security heavyweights' who were present @ the  press conference when the security plan was unveiled.

Pat Santy has a poem along the lines of Monty Python's Lumberjack Song.

Comments

[Michael]

I think the U.S. and it's allies will continue to suffer defeat until we apply the label "World War" to this conflagration. An earlier post was quite right when he pointed out that prior to W.W.II, the United States began preparing itself for a war on that scale. We have not, and I fear that it will take a major catastrophe to make the fractures in our society pointless.
I am an historian, and in my studies I have found that Islam has within its precepts an idealogical cancer that periodically erupts. It fascinates me. Passages in the Quran preach the yin of peace and the yang of violence simultaneously. Each side of the circle is available to whom would use it, and plainly those in power now have selected violence against the infidel as their tool to power. Note- By no means do I suggest that Islam is the only religon whose scriptures can be turned to evil use; Christianity, for instance, is replete with examples of the same thing.
I think many in the West view those in the Arab world through the prism of their former image- camel dependent, sword wielding tribesman, and in a way they are correct. Family and tribe matter to them in a way we left behind in modern times. Their philosophy condones killing within the tribes to settle differences, but calls on all tribes to band together against outsiders. An Arab quote- "My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and us against the world."
And here we are. A world war.

[RL]

Typo Correction from above posting,

Hassan Nemazee, a big-time Iranian-American financial supporter of Monsieur Jean Keree, who is definitely on the wrong side of the, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, and truth vs. falsehood equations.
Appearances belie deeper realities.

[RL]

Another very funny and creative image Alexandra (thanks for the laugh). The only thing that i would have done slightly differently is that i would have draped Monsieur Jean Keree with the IRI flag (you know, the one that has "allah akbar" written on it 22 times). With big-time financial supporters such as the NYC based Iranian-American investment banker Hassan Nemazi, who also happens to be a big supporter/lobbyist for the barbaric, evil, and murderous islamonazi-terrorist regime in Tehran; draping Monsieur Keree in the IRI flag would have been more appropriate, in my humble opinion. i just hope and pray that things don't come down to the evil IRI regime having to get a big dosage and extremely devastating/lethal taste of the awesome firepower of US Army "Apache" and USMC "Cobra" helo-gunships.
The US Armed Forces under the experienced, wise, and solid leadership of General Pace, DON'T "cut & run" (unlike the cowardly spaniards); and it is nice to know that the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Group is in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, on the 25th anniversary of his failed assassination attempt.
The Gipper's legacy of peace through strength continues to live on ! God bless President Reagan's soul.
i was speaking to an acquaintance of mine who is an USAF Intel. Officer just a couple of days ago, and one definitely gets the impression that these delusional, sociopathic, and evil monsters who are in charge of the evil islamonazi-terrorist regime, which has been occupying Iran for the past 27 yrs., don't have a clue as to the sort of extremely-devastating and ultra-precise(JDAM) firepower that they are "playing with".

The creative and thoughtful postings at this unique blog continue to be appreciated; please keep up the nice work Alexandra, and thank-you.

"Millionaire Mullahs" by Paul Klebnikov at, forbes.com
(a must read article on the barbaric, evil, and murderous towelheaded islamonazi-terrorists who have been destroying Iran, and the hopes and dreams of the Iranian people for the past 27 yrs. of hell on earth in Iran; while they and their organized crime/islamoterrorist families/cartels continue to get richer and richer)

jihadwatch.org (consistently good-content !)
secularislam.org

[Patrick]

My point in the references to the laws of warfare is supported by your comment. This is not one of those wars. The other side has voted for this to be a war of extermination.

They will have no truck with the ideals of western society and what we look for in peace. They seek the Carthagenian Peace. As Cato the Elder always said...Carthage Must Be Destroyed!

How do you destroy the 35% when non of the rest will let you know who they are...

[Washington]

Mr. Marshall:

I don't disagree with your assertion about the running of the war. We will see further commentary on it from senior military people.

I do disagree with your comparisons.

[Joseph Marshall]

Iraq is another matter. Despite the hyperbole over the MIC, a fraction of industry is geared towards the war. We have less than half a million service members engaged with only a small percentage of that number on the tip of the spear.

This is precisely why the matter has been misjudged by those who are running this war. I agree with epamimondus, a major victory was required for its symbolic power.

But the nature of the conflict as GBW has chosen to pursue it makes a "major victory" impossible. Think it through for yourself. What possible outcome in Iraq would send any message to anyone that terrorism against us was futile?

The three years that we have fought the War On Terror as a confict in Iraq, fought it on the cheap, and as a part time job, has sent precisely the opposite message. I believe I said this on another post but I will repeat it: the first real battle in the War On Terror was the Battle of Tora Bora. We lost it.

We lost it merely because Osama so easily escaped. The aura of invincibility, creating psychological dismay among our well-hidden enemies, which was required for a "major victory", was punctured at the moment we chose not to pursue him into Pakistan.

The second real battle in the War On Terror was lost when GWB and his inner circle dithered around for six months after the "mission accomplished" photo op and allowed the unhindered development of both an Iraqi insurgency, and private Iraqi militias, armed largely with Saddam's surplus small arms stores, which we didn't secure.

There has been no major battle since.

Our leaders are continuing to misjudge this war precisely because they have not been able to perceive this.

[epaminondas]

Excuse me gents, I speak with gulf arabs every single day, and frankly you don't have the slightest clue. You are naieve in the extreme.

Your naievety is not only striking, but frankly will lead to defeat.

THIS TYPE of war requires a victory so shattering that the salafi jihadists and WHAT THEY TEACH is discredited. This must be not only politics having been determined by war, but frankly had better result in a religious reformation by the 60% of muslims whose conscience is revolted by the 35% who morally support this, and the 5% or less who will act. If you look around carefully.. you can see it's very fragile beginnings here in the USA. VERY FRAGILE (and not CAIR).

THIS TYPE of war will require patience (democracy is not just the right to vote as we have seen in Kabul), a strong economy to sustain the effort, Shermanesque use of the military when compulsory, and unsparing ability to comprehend that THE OTHER SIDE must continue. They are compelled to continue or be dead. We are the whispering satan of of earthly material arrogances. They are the pious upholders of god, and to stop the jihad is a SIN. They CANNOT relent. The have been ordered to make Islamic Peace, and bring the world to the word. They are racist, unyielding, intolerant and arrogantly certain of their religious superiority.

"The Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions set standards on the conduct of war so that at some point, the warring sides can look at each other and come to an agreeement of peace." Sorry but based on what I know that is laughable idea in this instance. It has NO PLACE in THIS TYPE of war.

GO AWAY and read Qutb. Then come back.
Tamiyya, Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, Hassan Al Banna, Maududi..LEARN.

This isn't Vietnam.
Absurd naievety.

Two sides? You must come to terms with this ... there is nothing to discuss with the Salafi Jihadists. Unless you wish to be slapped gently and pay the jizya, as the Hadith requires.
Not me.
Cya. FINITO

[Washington]

Mr. Marshall:

As a military historian I salute your comment as a very sound attempt to draw a comparison between what we accomplished in WWII in three years and what has been accomplished in Iraq.

I do, however, disagree with the comparison. When the United States began supplying GB in 1940 we also started gearing industry for the coming war. When war was declared Germany was fighting on two fronts. We joined in with millions of service members. Note the phrase "World War"- for very few were on the sidelines.

Iraq is another matter. Despite the hyperbole over the MIC, a fraction of industry is geared towards the war. We have less than half a million service members engaged with only a small percentage of that number on the tip of the spear. Though we have coalition partners we shoulder the largest share of manpower. Comparing the two doesn't work no matter how you slice it.

Buckley made the same point a few weeks ago and even those senior oficers who are stating that we have not met our objectives scoff at comparisons to either WWI or WWII.

In Vietnam we were facing organized military forces, as well as non-traditional forces. We do not see that in Iraq.

By all means complain about policy, tactics, and strategic goals but resist the temptation to compare this war with any other-it doesn't work.

All the best!

[Patrick]

On the waging of war...killing our enemy wherever we find them.

The Law of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions set standards on the conduct of war so that at some point, the warring sides can look at each other and come to an agreeement of peace. One or both sides disregarding these standards set conditions that lead to the peace of Carthage. One side MUST be destroyed utterly for peace to exist.

This type of complete and unrestricted warfare leads to conflicts that lasts for generations. Remember that all sides in a conflict have a vote, and it only takes one vote for this type of protracted conflict. Look at who takes aimed shots, target those defined as combatants and seek to limit the horrific damage that war brings. War will never be clean and precise as Hollywood will have you believe. It can be easier to have a peace if both sides Waltz. If one Waltz' and the other does a hip-hop demonstration, which is incompetent?

Those who are not judicious in that which they target seek only chaos and pain. That is the only goal they will ever achieve unless they completely eradicate their enemy. Nobody ever "wins" this type of war.

[Joseph Marshall]

One might regard the conduct within this war as INCOMPETENT, and I myself have spoken out on this many times, but so was WW2 (just study the invasion of the Phillipines in 1944, or Okinawa)

It is not the "conduct" of the "single war" that is incompetent. It is the concept. The failure is exactly the same failure as the Southeast Asian conflict and the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan. The failure is not understanding the nature of the war you are fighting.

Consider the fact that in December 1941 the United States entered World War II and by December 1944 it was in eastern France. This should be a wake-up call to anyone who thinks.

Think, also, of what it would have meant if the standard of "killing our ememies wherever we find them" had been applied to any other modern conflict with the expectation of winning it.

If the forebodings and shivery warnings of our hostess are correct, this is clearly not an effective way of proceeding. So I would recommend anyone who gives them credit to start thinking of some alternatives.

[Washington]

I would be interested in hearing all of the instances wherein previous Commanders in Chief have cut and run. Among liberatrians and conservatives I find that Mr. Reagan is far more popular than Mr. Bush....

I am a conservative but am not ready to deify Mr. Bush. There have been egregious errors made by this administration but that is true of all administrations.

As for Clinton "kicking his butt," that sounds like an advertisement for her candidacy. Mr. Kerry has his SF-180 to contend with and that will prove very interesting.

Excellent image Alexandra.

[DavidByron]

e says,The jihadistas will never give up the idea that it is their personal individual responsibility to spread the word throughout the world and create peace in this way, an Islamic peace.

Just as well America stuck it out in Vietnam isn't it? We'd all be communists by now if America had cut and run. Either than or nobody would have ever heard from Vietnam again.

[epaminondas]

What's amazing is, that as a lifetime democrat, the critical progessives who today call themselves liberal, Rorschach, are as you put it, fascinating. But then as someone who speaks with gulf arabs every single day, perhap I am a but jaded about the SINGLE WAR going on out there, and Felix D's, phrase for non-intentional helpers. I understand how well meaning people can disagree about the tacics by which this war is waged, i.e. Iraq as a campaign in that war may be regarded as unhelpful. I don't know what those who can't see reccommend as a longterm policy towards those who means to be dhimmis, muslim or dead (and they are really well meaning about it, if you speak with them), but I frankly find it enraging when these same people also regard us as a threat to the world.

One might regard the conduct within this war as INCOMPETENT, and I myself have spoken out on this many times, but so was WW2 (just study the invasion of the Phillipines in 1944, or Okinawa).

However, Peleliu had as much to do with conquering Berlin as, Tel Afar has to do with defeating Iran, and the rest of the Qutb brained morons. And thousands of salafi jihadist freaks killed trying to 'free' muslim lands from the boot heel of the crusaders and zionists are as dead as those japanese killed in battles which one COULD argue might have been bypassed, with more men thrown against the enemy on the plains of Europe.

Unfortunately for the democrats (and the USA, btw) they have long ago squandered their credibility towards national security, and spent more than a generation doing so, and back in 2000, when I was a Bradley supporter it didn't matter so much. SO much so that a man like Scoop Jackson would be a pariah, just as Joe Lieberman is.

But this isn't then.

We should kill the enemy where we find him.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, Mr. Rorschach, I'll be perfectly frank with you. As you might guess, I'm not a big fan of most of the Bush Administration public policy. Nor of the Reagan Administration's either.

But I, too, was persuaded, with good reason, that he was on the right track after the fall of the Taliban. This is because I measure success by results and I find those who whine because political oppostition kept them from success to be purile.

Other than throwing around a lot of ordinance in Iraq, I defy any poster here to articulate one concrete success since the deposition of Saddam Hussein that has made any difference one way or another to the "War On Terror". Saddam fell three years ago.

Three years is a long time. Particularly when you have as much power as the President of the United States has possessed during that time.

Since I do not expect our hostess or the commentors here to come up with any concrete suggestions about how to manage our little "Clash Of Civilizations" except to throw some more ordinance around in Iraq, and read the vaporings of who knows what radical Muslims to cheer us on while we throw around some more ordinance in Iraq, I'm not to inclined to listen to practical suggestions about who should occupy the office of the Presidency and who shouldn't from this quarter.

[Rorschach]

Fascinating. Excepting Epaminondas, every post to date has been inexplicable gloating about inevitable tarnishing of Bush reputation. Sound eager to see it, even willing to accelerate it by talking about it. Hoping for self-fulfilling prophecy? Hatred not conducive to rationality.

[epaminondas]

BTW Alexandra, glad to see you picked up on Abbasi.
He is the REAL DEAL

[epaminondas]

The mistake being made is that of every single absolutist.

If we stay or leave with the next admin it won't make the SLIGHTEST difference in the end. The jihadistas will never give up the idea that it is their personal individual responsibility to spread the word throughout the world and create peace in this way, an Islamic peace.

They believe simply that in a long war they will prevail. Well so sorry, but we have a 20 minute solution. All they have to do is keep on keeping on, which they cannot HELP but do. Sooner or later, we will do what FDR did, what HST did. They make this response compuslory. I wish it was otherwise, but they believ they have a better answer for the world.

The only question is the difference in how many people will be killed. Less this way. MANY MORE LATER.

Those people have a govt which has more staying power since it is not responsible to the people. The ulama there, and Guardian Coucil are not elected. It was the same for Stalin, Germany, N Vietnam, on and on. But in Vietnam, in Somalia, in Lebanon, our way of life was not involved, our personal and family security was not involved.

Just as Bin Laden made a huge mistake when he thought we were softer than the USSR (his words), so Abbasi simply has NO CLUE what it is we are willing to do. If you read his words in other places in fact he is aping Bin Laden's phraseology.

We are not faced by a Somalian warlord. We are faced by a group which believs god has chosen them, thru provoking armageddon, to enable the supremacy and success of a 7th century political ideology based on a religion which today has seen it's glory not through model and exemplarary behavior, but by medieval conquest, and brutal subjugation of other religions, from its inception right thru to today.

I'm not a republican, but this is not chest beating, this is pure survival.

They CANNOT relent. We cannot give in. That is an observation.

[Joseph Marshall]

No President since Lyndon Johnson has had a better hand of political and military cards to play than this one. And few Presidents in history have ever played them so badly.

Johnson made a legislative revolution that created contemporary domestic America with his hand of cards. GWB has merely made an unresolved mess in virtually every direction, foreign and domestic, with his.

Let's line them up: after the fall of the Taliban, GWB had the highest Presidential poll rating ever recorded; he also had two major electoral victories giving his party control of both Houses of Congress and the implicit public imprimatur for his policies; he has virtually [as of yet] unchecked executive power; he had five years of a totally pliant and spineless Congress; and he had the opportunity to overawe the world with United States military "invincibility" and to parlay that into massive leverage on the political situation in the Middle East.

He frittered all of these advantages away. Every last one of them. Markos didn't make him do it. John Kerry didn't make him do it. The New York Times didn't make him do it. Jack Murtha didn't make him do. Russ Feingold didn't make him do it.

He did it all by himself.

Why? First, because he is lazy. At virtually every turn of events in his favor, he dithered, delayed, and vacationed when a shrewd and proactive leader would have capitalized massively on it: Tora Bora, the 2002 midterm election, "Mission Accomplished", the 2004 election--all of these have been golden opportunities lost because there was no coherent political plan or White House agenda in place to take advantage of them.

On that one the buck really does stop in the Oval Office. Ronald Reagan didn't work all that hard either, but he took the time to think through the results he really wanted, he let his subordinates, as well as the public, know clearly what he wanted, and he doggedly stuck to what he wanted. So he got considerably more accomplished with far fewer advantages.

Take one glance at the pablum served up as "issue positions" of the past five years over on www.whitehouse.gov, and anyone with eyes can tell that nothing like the Reagan clarity, the Reagan shrewdness, or the Reagan Administration smoothness informs them. Nothing even close.

Second, GWB is arrogant. At the end of the historical day, the one event that will mark the real decline of his presidency will be the Terri Schiavo affair. No politician with any sense would have made such an unnecessary grandstand play of returning to Washington to sign that bill.

From that point forward there could be no doubt by even the dullest of us that he was governing and setting public policy to pander to only the "social conservative" faction of his party and not with the involvement of the public as a whole.

That simply doesn't work. No President has or will get anywhere with anything unless he maintains some pretense that his policies are tailored to the best interests, and the genuine consensus, of the country as a whole.

At every turn GWB has made it compellingly clear that his policies are to serve only the ends of the most vocal faction of his own party, and that only when elections are under consideration and major corporate money is not involved. America simply can't get anything done on those terms. It never has and it never will.

Third, he is unintelligent. The moment of decision when he could have turned things around and achieved a lasting mark on this country, and the world, with his Presidency was immediately after the 2004 election. Had he understood and acknowledged that his victory was close and proceeded carefully and thoughtfully, he could have carried all before him.

Instead, he publicly crowed over his "political capital" and lauched into the issue where a mere slight popular majority vote left his Presidency weakest: Social Security reform. Had he moved first where his support was strongest and broadest--cutting Federal taxes--all the dominoes would have fallen after.

Moreover, he took on Social Security in absolutely the most politically boneheaded way possible. He had no concrete proposal to bring to the table. He also made no major national television speech about it, since he had no concrete proposal to push.

And he merely extended his round of Presidential campaign speeches to hand picked audiences in local cities and towns thinking that this would somehow result in a broad public consensus to "do something" without any clear statement about what was going to be done.

Why did he do this? Because campaigning is just about the only thing in politics that he really enjoys. And he has surrounded himself with a bunch of people who are as good at managing election campaigns as they are clueless about what to do after you win.

He lost on Social Security reform. And he has been merely treading water politically ever since. He started the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, and he has recently admitted that he will not be able to finish it during the rest of his term of office.

And this is the President that "partisan interference" has kept from accomplishing something?

When you shoot yourself in the foot, you have to draw your own gun to do it.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Interesting. Goes to show that we should not back-off from our threat to use force if necessary. Bush has, no matter what thug in chief thinks about it, proven that the US is ready to use force if necessary (some argue even when it's not necessary).

Ahmadinejad will be very disappointed if he thinks that the next American President will be too weak to act. I think that most Senators (who will probably bring forth the next president) are not very patient when talking about Iran. Besides that he and his buddies are making one mistake: Europe was devided about the use of force against Iraq: GB supported the US, as did Spain as did The Netherlands. Other countries like Germany and France were against.
Iran seems to be a different matter. Europe recognizes a greater danger in Iran than they (we) ever did in Iraq.

Of course we will not rely on American intelligence (information) alone anymore. But that is quite irrelevant; like I said: This time Europe seems to agree with the Bush administration.

[Semanticleo]

"It'll be interesting to see how fast you all turn and spit on Bush's grave when he's gone."

It took twenty years for the Nixon apologists to acknowledge
that big bowl of wrong. Count on at least that long for
their dear leader to fall.

[DavidByron]

Aha. Chest-beating Republican keyboarders. The fall of empire demands more and elaborate displays of "patriotism" and loyalty. I wonder how long America will survive after the reign of Caligula.

It'll be interesting to see how fast you all turn and spit on Bush's grave when he's gone.

[http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/]

This makes sense. If I were malaria, I'd simply wait for environmental extremists to outlaw DDT.

Another instance of the covert alliance between the opportunists of Islam and the loonytunists of the Left.

[Liquid]

I love the photo!!!