Mark, Fantastic post brother. I am 44 years old and in my lifetime, I have never seen such a great and courageous leader as President Bush. If the dems had gotten out of the way, President Bush would also have reformed social security with private accounts which would be looking pretty good right now, reformed the tax code and reformed medicare. I thank him for his leadership, courage, honesty and integrity, character and his spine of steel. God bless you President George W. Bush. I think you are the greatest president in american history.

The next time Kristol is right about the Bush presidency will be the first time. The successful outcome he envisions would be most welcome but only through today's filter. In 2003 damn few Americans would have been much interested in establishing an Islamic theocracy in Iraq at the cost of more than half a trillion dollars and nearly 4,000 American lives, but that now appears to be a best case scenario.

It is also way to soon to be doing a victory lap over preventing terrorist attacks on American soil. The threat is still very much there, and we have invested a fortune in Iraq. If we are ever hit here, expect a flood of second guessing over how that money could have been used to build internal defenses.

If you average my assesment of Bush as a president with that of James Allegro, he comes out in the middle of the pack.

Oh man. I'm not much of a partisan player. I have my biases (everyone does), but I try to call things as I see them on the basis the facts and logic available. But this post should make the logic police go nuts. At least I hope so. There are so many layers of goofiness here. I hope this one gets bumped because it's unlikely that I can contribute in any meaningful way in the next few days, and I do so want to. But boy, this one really needs to be carefully deconstructed, because at its heart it's nonsense.

Deleted - off topic

First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil --

The terrorists have no need to attack on U.S. soil, as they are now doing enough damage to America in Iraq; and Bush and his administration is helping to do the job of terrorizing the population at home by keeping them in a constant state of fear.

Bush and his administration is helping to do the job of terrorizing the population at home by keeping them in a constant state of fear.

And, being in Canada, you know this how? Do you have even a shred of proof that ANYONE in the U.S. is living in a constant state of fear, or was that simply an unsuccessful attempt at hyperbole? My only fear is that Hillary will be our next PResident. Now THAT'S scary!

Mark,
I will give credit to Bush for the economy. I will give him credit for increasing aid to Africa (something that almost everyone ignores). But as for the rest, forget it.

(Ed. Note: the rest of this comment was off topic)

Deleted - off topic

right Mark. Just like Nixon and LBJ went down as heros for their war in Vietnam? Oh thats right - it wasn't the people who actually bombed the vietnamese or ordered it - it was the fault of those who wanted to stop the nepalming. they just didn't understand how droping napalm on women and children was an showing love for people everywhere

I think bush will be remembered for making the tough decisions and not wavering to political pressure.

I think he was the right person for the job at a time where this country was going through a tough time. Had Al Gore won this country probably would have been attacked more than just on 9/11.

The Clinton/Gore administration created the environment where the terrorists could freely move in our country.

I am sure terrorism will test the resolve of the next president.

Deleted - off topic

"Having no attacks on American soil since 9/11 is something that most people don't think about - the absence of a thing tends to drive it out of mind"....

Hmmm, Mark, is it not historical fact that the last attack on American soil before 9/11 was in 1941? Was Bushie Boo even born by then? Al-Queda does pose a threat, but nowhere near as big a threat as Japan did in WWII. Al-Queda has limited technology, and only the element of suprise to give them an edge. Their problem is their fanatisism, yet Kamakazie bombers showed that same fanatisism in WWII, crashing planes into ships. This terrorism is NOT new, and Bush is NOT the only one who has anything to do with helping thwart it. Many, many people, both Republicans AND (see the AND, Mark) Democrats have risked and lost their lives to protect our freedoms. STOP ACTING LIKE A BABY! Liberals are NOT all bad. And Bush is NOT the center of the Universe. Many Liberals DIED for your freedom to call them names, Mark. It would do you well to remember that. Have YOU died for your country? Obviously not. Many Liberals HAVE, Mark. Conservatives are NOT the only heroes here, and your neglect of the great men and women who had Liberal ideals sickens me. Without "Liberals" such as Thomas Jefferson (who was Unitarian Universalist, not necessarily a Christian) and Ben Franklin, this country WOULD NOT be here today. Think on these things, Mark....

You're right Sarah that wars are more than "bombs and bullets" but you'll remember that the purpose of the "surge" is to attempt to quell the violence in Bagdad, so that the Al Maliki government can reach some political goals. I'm hoping that this surge will do just that.

Sarah:
I am very glad to read your thoughtful analysis based on reality and facts, not hope and faith. Thanks for drawing attention to the obvious, the basis of all good comedy. (Or in this case, tragedy.)

Deleted - off topic

AEI/Weekly Standard/PNAC are the religous basis of the neoconservative church from which Bush worships. If Bush is wrong then their religion is wrong and that can't be.

BEL, one could easily substitute "Global Warming" for "AEI/Weekly Standard/PNAC" and "Algore" for "Bush", and you'd have a sense of how we on the right view your religion and its icons.

Spook-

Understood. Al Gore and the environmentalists can be a bit much, and their science and methods can in some ways be disputed, but to dispute Kristol's errors in prognostication at least in regards to Iraq is to dispute reality.

Spook-

I am not an Al Gore guy,though I believe global warming is real and we are the cause. I like Barack. He was right on the war IMHO and he is based in my hometown of Chicago.

My only fear is that Hillary will be our next PResident. Now THAT'S scary!

That should scare you. Just imagine Hillary with all the powers Bush has usurped to the presidency. Hillary with the power to kidnap and rend whoever she wants to secret overseas prisons. Hillary with the power to intercept any American's communications without court order or any justification. Hillary with the power to suspend habeas corpus and keep prisoners for years without charge. Hillary using signing statements to completely circumvent congress's intentions. Al Gore in secret meetings with unidentified environmentalists, the Sierra Club writing our energy and environmental policies and implementing them without review or approval. Yes it will be interesting.

No second attack on U.S. soil? Which country was in a panic in 2001 because anthrax was being mailed? it seems the point of that was to kill or injure people in order to create fear, which seems a reasonable definition of terroism. So the statements should be no THIRD attack. I realize it's kind of picky, and no one can be right all of the time, or in Kristol's case, some of the time.

If there was a new attack, does anyone here believe that we, as a nation, would handle it well? How much faih do you have in FEMA and similar groups?

I'm also unsure why the benchmarks are "meaningless." Should we not expect progress to be made? Should we not expect the government to accurately report progress? I believe Kristol regards the reports as meaningless because he feels we will continue to provide money and soldiers without condition or limitation until we have a new president. He regards this as a good thing. If there is no progress made towards removing militias from Iraqi security, or work made towards dividing oil revenues or privatizing oil, or any attempt to create a stable, peaceful Iraq, we will happily send soldiers and funds, we no need for either to be returned or accounted for. Sweet deal for Iraq

If you average my assesment of Bush as a president with that of James Allegro, he comes out in the middle of the pack.

Noone would expect anything different from you, Throwup.

David Corn does a pretty good job of countering Kristol's points here:

Casper, Corn-hole works for Katrina van den Evil, at The Nation. Puhleeeeze!!!

right Mark. Just like Nixon and LBJ went down as heros for their war in Vietnam? Oh thats right - it wasn't the people who actually bombed the vietnamese or ordered it - it was the fault of those who wanted to stop the nepalming. they just didn't understand how droping napalm on women and children was an showing love for people everywhere

Mark, you need to consider banning this liar. Nepalming? Droping? Her excuse? "I type phonetically."

Give us a break, Dr. Dumbass, and admit you were thrown out of school in the third grade, for bringing Barbie and Ken to school naked. Face it, girlfriend--nobody believes anything you post here. Well, maybe rockead, Broder, CO, and Broder, but noone else...

You lefties do realise that I only quote a little bit of Kristol in order to introduce something that I have been getting ready to write for a while, don't you? I mean, it was just a good opening - as for the rest, I didn't even complete reading Kristol's article until after I completed writing mine.

When will you liberals learn to comment on the actual post?

...all that writing you did...and then it all just wound up being an annoyance for me as I had to delete it.

Rules for Blogging:

1. Think.

2. Write.

Just imagine Hillary with all the powers Bush has usurped to the presidency.

Posted by: Aztec at July 19, 2007 04:44 PM

If Hillary does become your next President and decides, in the same manner as Bush, to spit on the American people and your Constitution; will there not be a revolt? Do you think the citizens of the United States of America will surrender their country to the commander-in-chief, without a fight?

kblack,

Vietnam was lost - Iraq won't be.

Rules for Blogging:

1. Think.

Mark,

How do you expect the liberals to post when they consistently fail rule #1?

CO,
I don't believe that Hillary will abuse her power in the way Bush has. There was a touch of sarcasm in that post.

There was a touch of sarcasm in that post.

Posted by: Aztec at July 19, 2007 06:40 PM

I know.

Yeah, why would Shrillary abuse power? She wants to distance herself from Slicky Blue Dress, doesn't she?

Mark: Rules for Blogging:

1. Think.

2. Write.

Apparently the thought police failed to intervene between step 1 and step 2, lol!

keefer,
Did you see my answer to your post about teachers a couple of days ago?

Can anyone honestly dispute the truth of Paramedic Sarah's comments?

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, your comment "Even the Canadian dollar predicted to be worth more than the US dollar by early 2008." with the implied emphasis on "Even". Hurt my Canuck feelings. Boooooo to you. (lol)

PS: Mark, you sure were in a deleting frenzy this post. Why bother? So what?

To: Hmmm, Mark, is it not historical fact that the last attack on American soil before 9/11 was in 1941?
Did you forget about the World Trade Center before 9/11? Did you know they planned 911 for years (during the Clinton reign)?
While we slept.....

God Bless Bush, his courage and determination and on THE NEXT ATTACK, if a dem is pres see what happens when we go running with our tail between our legs. Attack after attack after attack will follow.
The next time your are attacked by someone in the street, tell them your sorry and ask then what you did wrong that would cause them to want to hurt you. Ask them to sit down and DISCUSS how to get them to stop attacking you. Tell them you'll send millions of dollars to your family. Tell them you'll go home and forget about it. Don't worry, be happy.
Sound ridiculous. It is.

Democrats and anti-war people love polls, after all they keep telling us that polls show that the majority of Americans want US troops out of Iraq.

So seeing we are basing decisions on polls, then the next obvious question is who do Americans have the most confidence in?

Well again Libs keep posting Bush's 27% support percentage, but noe with latest poll results in and congress being at an all time low of 14%, then it's vious Americans prefer Bush at a rate of 2 to 1 over the Democrat Congress

It is interesting President Bush get credit for being resolute and having courage. First, on courage he is going to have to get in line behind all the troops that have served in Iraq. I am sure that number is over 200,000 over the fours years. And on being resolute...he has no choice but to have others stay and fight. He is at 30% approval. If he leaves the anti-war people are not going to embrace him and the pro-war people will dismiss him leaving him with nothing. I don't think following your only choice is being resolute.
We will eventually withdraw and he will always say that we could have won...and anything positive that happens in that area of the world will be atributed to the war.

Or me. But I figured out how to manipulate the system. I have been bannned over 10 times.
I say we gang up and overload his server. (Ed Note: 11 times - we've got more "ban" than anyone has got time to create id's)

Err... on that we'll have to disagree... I think a President should know slightly more than he did his duty. It doesn't take courage to start a war from the safety of your office that you're almost guaranteed to win. It sure does take it to have screwed up the post-war planning every step of the way and still insist that you and you alone know what's best however, though a better description for this may be arrogance. It takes courage to tell the Iraqi we've decided to use their country as a warzone so that they endure the bombing and the murders 'over there' so we don't have to endure them 'over here'. It took a lot of courage to tell the Iraqis we were there to remove Saddam from power and find the WMD's but stay there years beyond and build American bases that rival the Vatican. It takes courage to tell the American people the six week, $2 billion dollar war they were asked to support is actually probably going to cost trillions, take decades and result in thousands upon thousands of deaths. It takes courage to tell the American people there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.

Oh, and saying the people who disagree with you want the terrorists to win is not the definition of "changing the tone" in Washington. To take an approval rating reaching 90% and lose it so completely takes a special type of incompetence.

Ed,

President Bush could have pulled us out of Iraq - after declaring victory - a dozen times; he hasn't because he knows this is a war, not a law enforcement exercise. Wars are won only by winning them - as MacArthur said, there is no substitute for victory.

nah... that would be mean...

So... someone said something about the logic police?

Here we go...

Having no attacks on American soil since 9/11 is something that most people don't think about - the absence of a thing tends to drive it out of mind; but the plain fact of the matter is that we were proved horribly vulnerable on 9/11 and to have nearly 6 years go by without another attack - at a time when the terrorists would give just about anything to carry out an attack in the United States - shows that President Bush has made the right moves in making America secure. Not 100% secure - there is no way to do that; but secure enough that the fear of another attack has faded from the public mind. For all the carping of some that we haven't done enough and all of the downright stupid statements that we are no more secure than we were then, the fact of no new attack is something greatly to President Bush's credit.

This, children, is called an argument from ignorance. The underlying assumption is that George Bush's terror policies are working. To prove it wrong would require a terrorist attack to happen (let's hope not), however, that absence is not proof that his policies are working. If you apply that same reasoning, no attacks between the first WTC attack and Bush's inauguration proved that Clinton's security policies protected America well... Can you imagine one of the Righties on this site agreeing to that? I would also like to point to the NIE, which was pretty bleak for Bush's policies. Pretty much, AQ has been beefing back up after Bush took his eye off the ball and on to Iraq.

President Bush inherited a recession, a stock market slump, a corporate corruption scandal and then had that whole economic morass topped off with a terrorist attack which cost the American economy greatly. From these economic doldrums, President Bush has cleared the way for an economic boom the likes of which America has never seen. Oh, to be sure, a lot of people don't see it - because the MSM simply will not tell the people the truth about what is happening in the economy. But for anyone paying attention, it is clear that we've never had it so good - and all of this economic growth was fostered by President Bush in the teeth of what he inherited, and the desperate attempts by Democrats to get President Bush to kill the economy via tax hikes.

First, I would ask Mark to look at foreclosure rates (which are way up). Right around the beginning of Bush's presidency, mortgages became available with no money down, and, at low rates, more and more people borrowed money against their houses and, if they defaulted, they just foreclosed (since they didn't actually lose any money). That's where we get the "Housing Bubble" term. Here we hit another fallacy or two... What is being done is an incredibly complex mechanism is being ridiculously over-simplified. I had this long debate with Libsbane on another thread about the lack of a silver bullet for the economy. There is no silver bullet... In fact, I believe that Greenspan's irresponsible lowering of interest rates had more to do with jump-starting the economy than did Bush's tax cuts. I would also like to point out our dismal trade imbalance and the USD's dismal performance overseas.

Iraq was the central act of courage of President Bush - he could have avoided it altogether. In other words, after toppling the Taliban he could have called it a day and basked in the glow of a low-cost and successful military campaign which exorcised a lot of the anger and fear Americans felt immediately after 9/11. But he knew that to leave things alone after Afghanistan - and even if we really stepped up our non-military anti-terror campaign - it would be to just kick the problem down the road...perhaps until after President Bush left office, but still a gathering threat which would be best met as early as possible.

And so, into Iraq - but first he, mistakenly, gave his critics their UN due and did the diplomatic dance which merely allowed Saddam and the terrorists time to prepare; but President Bush had promised a new tone in Washington, and he felt bound by that promise, even if the other side was spitting in the extended hand. When diplomacy inevitibly failed, the military which had been refurbished by President Bush since 2001 gave the world the most magnificent display of armed might ever seen. And, once again, President Bush could have cashed his chips in and come home - like his father, he could have declared victory, held a big parade and then basked in the glory of it all...and, unlike his father, this would likely have propelled President Bush to re-election with something on the order of 60% of the vote...but votes weren't important; heck, getting re-elected wasn't important...what was important was changing the dynamic of the Arab/Moslem world as the only means to actually solve the problem of terrorism - and that meant we'd have to stay in Iraq and make certain it got fully on its feet before we left. And thus the tight election of 2004, and the continued hammering of the President's popularity as the campaign has gone on far longer than anyone wanted, or hoped.

I don't want to get into another long and protracted debate about the merits of going in to Iraq (it is 1:20AM here); I'm just going to say that you're wrong and leave it at that (it was a perfect illustration of the phrase, "Chasing Windmills", though). Bush's current policy in Iraq not only gave the terrorists a powerful recruitment tool, it has allowed for a Taliban resurgence in Iraq (not to mention all of the AQ "Cause celebre" stuff from the past two NIE's). I find your "promise of a new tone" line hilarious and hypocritical, considering you and your ilk's tendency to resort to ad hominem attacks (another fallacy).

Many times since 2004 President Bush could have given up - to the applause of many, he could have pulled the troops out after declaring victory...but that, once again, would be to just delay the day of reckoning. One thing President Bush has certainly proved is that he has no lack of courage - and that courage will be rewarded.

All I'm going to say for this part is that the line between "courage" and "thick-headedness" is often hazy, and the two are often confused.

It might take some time, but I don't think it will take much time - it could be as soon as 2010 or so that we're already getting people saying that "President Bush would have done such and such" in the face of some crisis, or that "President Bush wouldn't have backed down the way so and so did". President Bush's courage and sublime disregard for his own position will become a standard of reference - it will be asked if "so and so" has the courage to risk his political career the way President Bush did. A man like President Bush comes along rarely in a nation's history, and I am grateful we have had him through these difficult times - the next President will have less trouble to deal with and a smoother ride...and will likely reap the political benefits he didn't earn, but that is ok - all President Bush ever needs to know is that he did his duty, and that is enough for any man.

Well, some people will probably be saying that... their handles would probably be Kahn, keefer, Jeremiah, and Retired Spook, and they will probably be accompanied by Mark Noonan, Matt Margolis, Princilla Smith, and Leo Pusateri. Hell... I supported Clinton, but I don't say "Clinton would have done bla bla bla." Though I do think that Hannity will have a moment of silence every night for the end of Bush's term.

Totally O/T, but has anyone here seen Jesus Camp? That movie freaked me out... especially that scene where the children were praying to a cardboard cutout of the shrub... *shudders*

Rana,

That you watched "Jesus Camp" and thought it a real depiction of evangelical Christian life shows the gulf of ignorance you still have to bridge before you will be able to talk sensibly about Christianity.

That aside...

The proof is always in the pudding - but we know full well that the terrorists have very much wanted to attack us here at home and the fact that there have been no attacks since 9/11 is revealing - as are the confirmations of actual plots broken up before they could be put into effect. Eventually, you are going to have to credit President Bush for this - especially if nothing happens by January 20th, 2009.

Housing bubbles come and go - this is, I believe, about the fifth or sixth housing bubble I've lived through...Americans grow wealthier, more of them buy homes, home prices start to rise as demand outstrips supply...and then fool speculators move in and absurdly bid up the price of housing as each of them thinks they've found the magic elixir to easy money...just buy a house, and then turn around and sell it...eventually, however, there is too much supply on the market and prices have risen too high for any but the really dumb to buy...and then things fall flat...the speculators are shaken out of the market and the real housing market returns.

And where was the worst bubble? Ultra liberal San Francisco...where the socially caring people were ripping each other off selling starter homes to each other for a million dollars...

"And where was the worst bubble? Ultra liberal San Francisco...where the socially caring people were ripping each other off selling starter homes to each other for a million dollars..."

Such a seething and silly statement. Are you suggesting that something other than ordinary market forces are driving property values in San Francisco? How is the cost of a house a rip-off when there is somebody more than willing to pay it?

Mark-

I never said that it was an accurate portrayal of all Christians; it is an accurate portrayal of some Christians, but not all. You're connecting dots that don't exist. I do feel like I am at least somewhat able to talk about Christianity. I dated a conservative RLDS (Mormon Lite) member for a little more than two years... even campaigned for Bush with her in '04 and went to church with her on several occasions. Oddly enough, she wound of cheating on me with a married man 13 years older than us.

What you don't have is proof contrary to the notion that Bush has kept us safer; what you do have is two consecutive NIE's: one saying that Iraq is a "Cause celebre" for terrorists; the other saying that Al Qaeda is back to or above their strength as of 9/11. Thwarting amateurs doesn't necessarily prove that law enforcement is more able than they have been. Even the Atlanta Hawks (which is a horrible team, btw) can beat most minor league basketball teams. As has been noted, Bush has neglected to secure our borders and ports, something that would be infinitely more effective than any wiretapping program would be. Do you think that Clinton effectively prevented terrorist attacks after 1993?

Americans grow wealthier, more of them buy homes, home prices start to rise as demand outstrips supply

Actually, the increase in home sales had little to do with increases in personal wealth. The way that mortgages have worked since 2000 have had much to do with it. Now, people are able to mortgage the value (some times more than the value) of their homes without putting any money down, their new houses being the only leverage. If (and usually when) people default on the mortgage, they just give up their homes, since they technically didn't lose any money on the transaction. That's why I told you to look at foreclosure figures. People were able to borrow more money than they could pay back at little or no cost to them, so they were able to buy more expensive homes. When interest rates started going up, people couldn't borrow as much money, and the market started to slow as people were asking for too much for their homes. You also didn't look at trade imbalances and the USD's strength overseas, both of which are both pathetic and good economic indicators.

I'll take your lack of refuting the other points as meaning that you aren't able to. Fine with me.