Noonan, you're kidding, right? 9/11 made and currently sustain Bush when common sense and logic dictates that he should not have been let anywhere near the oval office in the first place.

The core of the Bush problem is an extremist worldview. Bush's aggressive go-it-alone attitude kicked in long before 9/11. "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" was just an extension of Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.

Under Bush, reality had to be bulldozed into submission. Whatever went wrong in Iraq or Afghanistan, questioning Bush's narrow understanding of the Islamist danger amounted to appeasement, cutting and running, pining for defeat. Whatever the economic conditions, the remedies were privatization, deregulation and tax cuts for plutocrats. On every front, foreign and domestic, liberals were to blame because he and those around him are incapable of taking the blame for anything and are more than willing to point fingers.

This attitude doesn’t stop with Bush alone. Just recently, in this spirit, an e-mail from Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman warned that democratic victories in the midterm elections would mean "government by the far left," "weakening America" thus: "Impeachment. Cutting and running from the war on terror. Key defense systems dismantled. Tax cuts repealed. Speaker Pelosi." The logic of this paranoid worldview is a deep and awful thing to confront. But confronting it is a matter of intellectual honesty.

Today, especially in light of recent scandals and revelations it's morally mandatory, a matter of intellectual decency, that Bush's supporters rethink both their credulity and their ideology and ask how they could for so long have overlooked what now should be obvious: Perhaps he is not a conservative at all but a deficit-mongering big-government advocate, a world-changing radical in disguise and a cultivator of global anti-Americanism. Perhaps, from Baghdad to Kabul to New Orleans, bungling is not the exception but the rule because he and his inner circle hold planning, the law, diplomacy and even reason in contempt.

George W. Bush is either grossly incompetent or a hand-puppet for a bunch of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.

This is really your white flag of surrender, isn't it? In a post entitled "Judging President Bush", you offer no such judgements, or even cite items to be judged. Instead, you quote an article implicitly stating that Bush looks terrible now, but like Reagan and FDR, something could happen that would turn it all around for him. In addition, you offer a competing argument that even if things don't turn around, we really can't judge a President until 50 years later or so. (Funny, you see fit to already judge Clinton and Carter as terrible Presidents, though.)

Basically, you are admitting the obvious, that for all intensive purposes, Bush has been a disaster, but we can't know for sure until years later, so all us liberals should just shut up and agree that he is a man of great vision approaching genius.

I'm printing off a copy of your blurb, Mark...and leaving it with my family to check out in 50 years. I've made a few predictions myself as to how 'history' will cover Shrub's reign. I probably won't be around; although long life is certainly a characteristic in my family. I am a historian and a teacher. Yours is one of three apologist blogs that I check out for the occasional giggle or affirmation of the typically circular logic used by most of the current Dear Leader Apologists. I have thought of attempting to comment at times. Or, perhaps, to attempt to engage in some back and forth with you. I always remind myself, however; of the lack of coherent, linking logic in your postings.

That all being said...ROFLMAO...

Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had in several days...

funny - hendrik hertzberg, in his tome, "politics" interprets the writings of reagan biographer, lou cannon, as saying the following in the book "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime":

REAGAN, as portayed in Cannon's book and in his own, is a childlike and sometimes childish man. His head is full of stories. He is unable to think analytically. He is ignorant. He has notions about the way things work, but he doesn't notice when these notions contradict each other. He has difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality. He believes fervently in happy endings. He is passive and fatalistic. He cannot admit error.

Ethan:
I think the one thing you said that proves the point of the Republican Party and their view of the Democrats...

"Morally Mandatory"

Democrats don't believe in morals... in the sense of right and wrong. And I'm serious about this... when a party says Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as George Bush is... then how can one discuss reasonably?

Also... the reason why the Democrats have in recent months surged in the polls... AND THE ONLY REASON... they get to "govern" and criticize in hindsight.

It's the preferred way after all, there's making no tough decisions and NEVER being wrong. That's all the Democrats have offered since 1980.

The Party of FDR and big ideas has been replaced by a party that wrings it's hands and offers every side of every argument, only when the politics suits it.

I beg to differ in that 'those who currently hate President Bush are no different from those who hated Reagen in 1986 or FDR in 1936'.

These Bush haters are more viscious, more violent and more dangerous than we've ever seen before in American politics. At least in recent times.

wawillyo - if your comments were not so frighteningly hypocritical, i would take the time to eviscerate you point by point, but it would be a waste MY time.

Wow... did you get eviscerate from the word of the day calendar on your desk?

I am 100% serious. Y'all, if you're willing to admit it, has been, for at least the last six years, devoid of any ideas outside of hating George Bush.

The platform might work for you this year, but you cannot say straightfaced that as a PARTY, the Democrats have offered anything sustentative since 2000, and I'd argue really since 1996.

Trust me, I am NOT at all afraid of your "abilities." The truth hurts I know... and you know FULL well that morals and Democrat aren't normally used in the same sentence unless the phrase "complete lack of" is included.

IF you want to talk about morals, values, and attitudes, I'm ready to go. Hey... maybe you can show a picture of a Canadian being moral and pass it off as a Democrat.

However Orangealert...

I will give you that both parties have a problem with honesty and integrity.

However, it's blatantly hypocritical for Democrats to suggest that they would have handled the Mark Foley situation differently.

If the Republicans had investigated Foley in the aggressive manner that y'all are advocating now, and NOTHING had shown up, you'd call Republicans homophobes. IF it had turned up something serious, you would accuse Republicans of harboring pedophiles.

What's clear is that political gain over finding out the truth, is more important to you Democrats.
It's clear Mark Foley was wrong in his behavior, even if it wasn't technically illegal. The truth can't be said for the Democratic House when two members of Congress ACTUALLY did have sex with underage pages. Heck, one served another 12 years and was appointed to a chairmanship of a major House Committee.

I don't mention this to suggest that if the Democrats turn a blind eye then it's okay for a Republican to turn a blind eye... but it's patently obvious to anyone that the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid are trying to turn this into something it's not.

Also... as a bit of interest... the only party leadership who advocated the expulsion of the aforementioned representatives (one Republican and one Democrat) was the Republican Leadership.

I am also serious in my comment that I don't think a Democrat President would fight a lengthy war (let's not bring up Iraq... I'm talking in generalities). And I suggest this because recent history shows that people have exceedingly short attention spans AND Democrats govern by polls.

What else explains the faux moral outrage against the House Leadership, and yet NOT against Mark Foley. You know him, the one who actually misbehaved.

Ethan,

Amazing - in 2006, you actually used the word "plutocrat"...what's next? Robber Barons?

Geesh...get with the modern world - I couldn't go any further than that in your Bush-hating diatribe because it was just too absurd...

"Wawillyo," I want you to give me the name of any democrat currently serving in United States congress who has ever said that Bush was as bad or worse than Hussein (Although I do believe that Bush often wishes he could rule the U.S. like a dictator and be president for life)? You see the error in your thinking and why the Foley scandal will succeed in costing the republicans the majority is that you guys actually believe in your moral superiority. Guys, it was just supposed to be a PR ploy to gain and maintain control of the government. Don't tell me you actually fell for it?

While demonizing the democrats, you set a standard that is too high for any politician to live up to, be they democrat or republican.

Noonan, you can do better than dissing my choice of words. Come on, man!

In addition, you offer a competing argument that even if things don't turn around, we really can't judge a President until 50 years later or so. (Funny, you see fit to already judge Clinton and Carter as terrible Presidents, though.)

SteveGA

Excellent observation! Just goes to show how pathetic & desperate these Bush loyalists are becoming. They keep putting their foot in their mouths at every opportunity and if it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

And, I honestly don't "hate" Bush. I don't think most of us who post thoughts, ideas and opinions contrary to the normal cheerleading that goes on in this echo chamber really "hate" the man. You can say that we are enlightened individuals who recognize that Bush is ill-equipped (in ways too numerous to post on this blog) to be the president of the United States and that perhaps his talents could be employed elsewhere.

Maybe he could be a game show host? Or a comedian? How about a bartender (maybe not)? Anything that will get him out of the business of making life and death decisions and will keep him from doing any further damage to this country's image and future.

Actually Ethan;
enlightened is by no means the word I was thinking for you.

Hell, you are so intellectually dishonest that EVEN when Bush gives you what you ask for, i.e. Amnesty for illegal immigrants, you lambast him for it. The only thing you'd cheer for is if he resigned.

No matter what Bush does, he's wrong. That's not the sign of someone who's intellectual or even reasoned. I mean you can be dim and still see through what Howard Dean says. I have NEVER once seen him agree with Bush on ANYTHING. Today is Monday says Bush. Dean goes, no it's not and it's Bush's fault.

Actually, I've read TONS of statements on this very blog where people who share your views say Saddam had universal health care, and this and that and then say Bush has stopped this and that. If I looked for about two minutes I'd see where they said Saddam's regime was more honest then the Bush Administration.

You can't even be honest enough to recognize, that EVEN if you disagree with him, George Bush is doing what he believes (and he's not the only one either) will make this nation safer and the world more free.

What about Bush makes you mad? That he became President according to the Constitution? Or that he was President during 9/11? Or that he won re-election? Be honest with yourself, go ahead and just say you hate him. Maybe you'll realize you need therapy.

For the liberal clowns on this thread that apparently have the gift of clarevoyance.

How did Truman end up being viewed despite a 26% approval rating during the Korean War?

How did Lincoln end up being viewed despite being elected with less than 40% of the vote (I believe that was the number) and approval ratings horrific?

And on and on.

The hatred on the left continues...day in and day out. Hate, hate, hate, hate.

No wonder the pharmaceutical companies are doing well, the amount of zoloft subscriptions must be through the roof for our lefty "Americans".

Slow news day?

Its just a thrown out ploy to let the libs hang themselves. Calling our President, fearless leader is enough for me to know libs are nothing but shameless slime. They have no integrity, manners, honesty, or any other historically American attributes. Thus they are traitors in waiting...biding their time to further hinder our country. We should not let them do it...otherwise will have Madelline Albright doing those 400 lb. leg lifts she brags about in the White House. Check out the pic of that hag toasting the real 'fearless leader'...potbelly Kim....to which another Ohagi makes a pathetic comparison. Sometimes you'd just like to kick their ass, since polite debate is way beyond them.

All I can say is that every day I wake up and thank God that Al Gore, or John Kerry did not become president of this country.

The agonizingly obvious fact is that the left has invested so much into hating everything Bush, that to accept even one success would be tantamount to heresy.

How can the 'stupidest, ugliest, most chimp-like ignoramus' who ever inhabited the oval office do anything good or decent? Its not possible to believe if you follow the mainstream liberal line, especially not after making Bush the modern equivalent to Hitler/Ghengis Khan/Pol Pot.

Its frustrating to watch Bush being blamed for everything from high gas costs to your morning toast getting burned, but when events change for the better there is nothing but silence. Will any liberal here be willing to praise the president for the falling gas prices as vociferously as you blamed him for their rise?

I have yet to hear one substantive idea from the left with only thirty or so days to the election. What I do hear is the typical Kerry-esque wave of condescending tripe, "we are going to do things better." The problem is that the libs never actually say HOW they will supposedly make things better.

sigh - with respect to arcman's comment, all i can say is that i bet there are many, many millions of americans (a vast majority) right now who probably wonder where this nation might be if indeed gore had challenged the 2000 results, won, and listened to the advice of clark and tenet....

but yeah arcman - i'm with ya - i wake up everyday thanking my lucky unicorn that george bush is in power - he has turned out to be such a fine steward in these times of duress..

Orange - why do you post here? Why don't you go to Kos? It is obvious that you hate Bush, and that you have little use for him, or anyone who does not hate Bush. I for one am truly tired of your tripe, and see little point in reading it.

I can just imagine 9/11 happening with Al Gore in office.

OrangeAlert would still blame Bush for it.

LOL

"Orange - Why don't you go to Kos?"

Yeah, Orange, That sounds like and excellent idea!

Why don't you do that??

Jeremiah

sigh - with respect to arcman's comment, all i can say is that i bet there are many, many millions of americans (a vast majority) right now who probably wonder where this nation might be if indeed gore had challenged the 2000 results, won, and listened to the advice of clark and tenet....

You would surely win that bet, though those millions would now be wondering how Gore managed to cheat his way into the presidency, why we let Iraq and Iran engage in a nuclear arms race, and how Gore ever believed that raising taxes would stimulate our economy.

Then again, Im one of those many, many millions of Americans (a vast majority) who right now probably wonder where this nation might be if Carter hadnt been president and been sitting on his thumb while Iran humbled America in front of the entire galaxy.

I know President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and generally thought of an an intelligent man, but trusting the North Koreans with nuclear technology is pretty stupid if you ask me.

"Wawillyo," I want you to give me the name of any democrat currently serving in the United States congress who has ever said that Bush was as bad or worse than Hussein.

As for why I "hate" Bush, as I said I don't "hate" the man. I just believe he and his administration are incompetent. The most obvious example of this is Bush's decision to divert troops from their mission to dismantle the Taliban in Afghanistan and redeploying them for his invasion of Iraq, allowing them to regroup to the point that they're more powerful than before the September 11, 2001 attacks. I guess it makes sense. Why finish the job and quash the "rogue terrorists" when this administration needs their very existence and this war on terror to help maintain their hold on power? Without the endless "war on terror," the Republican Party under Bush doesn't have a toe to stand on.

I cant wait until the war on terror is over, then we can live in the peace and prosperity that we all enjoyed the last sixty or so years before Bush came into power.

In fact, lets throw a big party when its over, we can invite all the best people; the crew of the USS Cole, the diplomats from the Khobar Towers, the Marines who lived in the Lebanon barracks, Robert Stethem, Leon Klinghofer and the 1972 Israeli olympic team just to name a few. Im sure we can find a few tens of thousands more to attend.

The problem the liberals have is that when OBL is officially declared dead, they will do what they always do after such events, declare the preceeding war 'over' and call for the meltdown of the tanks and ships. Just as they did when the Berlin Wall fell, "the cold war is over, dismantle the army, all will be peace and flowers now!"

Even if the war on terror were to be endless, which I dont believe it will be, what is the alternative, accept the increasing number and ferocity of hits or bend over and accept our slave-chains? I hate to break this to ya, but some people wont be reasoned with, no matter how much you want it to be true.

Democrats are getting weirder by the day!!!!

Jeremiah

Its hard to argue logic against emotion. Time and again we have to educate liberals on history, military and foreign affairs, even basic geography. Yet, they stubbornly cling to their irrational hatred. If you challenge one idea, rather than admit you're right (even to themselves) they switch subjects. If you chase them down on every subject - they turn to insults.

Reagan was great. As the President of the Actors Guild he uncovered corruption and braved death threats. He was a good California Governor. I surved in the Marines under both Carter and Reagan. The change in the military was night to day. He defeated the Soviet Union and revived our economy from the awful mess he inherited from Carter. Though to be fair to carter the economy was not great when he took it over.

Everyone seems to forget that in the later years of his presidency when liberals were attacking him for being feeble, he was in fact recovering from being shot. He took a bullet for being president.

And what do we get now? John Kerry making jokes about killing the current president. Great - you assholes.

"the cold war is over, dismantle the army, all will be peace and flowers now!"

That sounds pretty good, actually. You don't want peace?