They have waged a one-note campaign about the stupidity of George W. Bush since he won the 2000 election and their victory in the 2006 midterms finally, to them, validated their most passionate “position.”

To the victors go the spoils so let’s see what the Democrats have reaped:

Donald Rumsfeld is gone and Robert Gates has replaced him. This They have waged a one-note campaign about the stupidity of George W. Bush since he won the 2000 election and their victory in the 2006 midterms finally, will result in not an iota of change in policy, as the Secretary of Defense is there to carry out the president’s vision, and the president is in no mood – thank God – to surrender, as the Democrats wish he would. (Actually, they would first like him to get down on his knees, apologize to the world for “Iraq,” and then surrender).

The Baker-Hamilton commission has issued its report and, wouldn’t you know, except for sneakily trying to sell out Israel – how dare they not invite Israel to their proposed regional conference! – their 79 “recommendations” basically add up to the president’s position of wanting our troops out without showing our enemies a timetable. But, to Democrats, the sheer number of Baker’s “recommendations” highlights Bush’s intellectual impoverishment – the president could never have thought of all those things! Classic Left-think, where quantity trumps quality.

Yes, the Dems, with their serious faces on, nodded their heads when Mr. Gates irresponsibly (and wrongly) said we were “losing” in Iraq. But you knew they derived deep pleasure from Gates’s seeming validation of their only true belief: that they were all smarter than the president. What the cultured John Kerry couldn’t do – expose Bush for the idiot the Left is convinced he is -- Robert Gates and James Baker would finally do through their invalidation of Bush’s Middle East policies.

Unfortunately, the very talented and effective John Bolton was also on the Democrats’ hit list. The change he was effectuating at the U.N. was palpable but unfortunately he had two things going against him: Democrats gave more consideration to his anger at a subordinate 25 years ago than they did to his extraordinary success in almost single-handedly bringing North Korea and Hezbollah to heel in the past 6 months – and, that he was an appointee of the man Al "We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country” Gore says made the “worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.”

To Democrats it’s still, “The president’s stupid,” stupid.

Bush, however, is anything but stupid. In fact, through the maelstrom of study groups and negative election results and losses of key members of his staff, our 43rd president has his eyes squarely on the single most important issue of our time -- preventing, at all costs, Iran from getting nukes, which he made clear at his joint press conference with Tony Blair today:

“(Iran) could use (a nuclear weapon) to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else that doesn't kowtow to them [and] historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.”

So while Democrats are more than happy to destroy their own president’s credibility in the eyes of the world at this perilous time in world history, we can take comfort that through the tidal waves of condemnation, President Bush – bloodied but admirably unbowed – still sees and says what is important.

Democrats will continue to try to make the president look bad while, at the same time, attempting to convince us that global warming – not global war – is the real “threat” we face. Talk about stupid!

Happy New Year. Truly.

I have heard much of the above before. You spend a lot of time with distractions from the real issues presented and just repeat everything you have already said over and over again- you seem to rehash these same tirades almost word for word on Huffpo, Real Clear Politics, Tribe, etc- the same angry rants against the left which ignore facts as they exist in reality in an effort to blame the dems and those you disagree with for Bush's failures. It's a little bit like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar so you are reduced to the doomed-to-failure response of "hey, look at that over there, look what HE'S doing." I know when your answers are filled with references to Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Cindy Sheehan, that I really am not going to get any really direct responses to my thoughts/points above. I do know that I am going to get a lot of generalizations about "the left", that I will by association be lumped in with the enemy and will walk away with few facts that enlighten me regarding your viewpoint.

I dont claim to have all the answers, but I do try to do my research and am ot so blinded by ideological hatred that I am unable to see mistakes made by both "sides". Nor am I so blinded by ideology that I am willing to jettison the most important American ideals and principles in order to maintain the illusion that my
"side" is without fault and "winning." I think George Orwell wrote a book about that.

As for your so-called fact that we aren't "stealing" Iraq's oil - are you aware that because their production is down so low that not only can they not export it to the US but they cant meet their OWN fuel needs and for the first time they actually have had to IMPORT OIL. So I am not even going to really get into the issue of what is going on at our gas pumps other than to sa that prices here are inching up again and to ask Why the rise from that convenient price dip in October/November? Here's why:

In that sycophant Woodward's recent books on Bush he has been dutifully respectful and willing to act as Court Stenographer for Bush and Cheney. But his his most recent one (State of Denial), written long before the gas prices dropped several months ago, verified a conversation between Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia and Bush, where Bandar promised oil prices would drop significantly and remain low during the midterm elections. Which they did.

So your point about gas prices seems to be another "hey, but look over there" distraction.

As for Iraq- Bush is responsible for the current mess in Iraq- the fact that you and other bush apologists refuse to make him responsible for ANYTHING just makes it worse. If this were a democratic president I would be saying the same thing. Why in the world any President would totally ignore their top military commanders in favor of the advice of novice, academic ideologues with ZERO military experience/knowledge is beyond me. And the fact that those military Generals which advised Bush on troop levels, the threat of an insurgency and the lack of adequate materials and supplies, have all turned out to be right, says a lot. But never you mind that, because Cindy Sheehan is working for Osama Bin Laden!!! That's what REALLY matters.

Bush rushed into a war without understanding the situation on the ground, made no plan for stabilizing the country once Bagdhad was taken and was blind to the very real threat that invading and occupying Iraq would siphon needed resources from the hunt for Osama and Al Queda in Afghanistan- and now the Taliban is on the rise again. The war has increased the threat from Iran (to the US, Israel etc) because Saddam and Iran were enemies and saddam, tyrant that he was, actually kept the extremist mullahs in check. It was also foreseeable that an invasion and long-term occupation would increase the recruiting of terrorists who previously refused to band together out of differing religious/cultural/regional views- But Bush managed to unite them against us.

Bush failed to understand the longstanding ethnic/cultural realities of Iraq and the surrounding countries. This failure has been disasterous.

And do you know anything at all about the administration having Osama trapped and within reach in Tora Bora, only to LET him get away thanks to Rumsfeld? Have you read ANY objective military accounts of Rumsfelds failures in Afghanistan due to his unwillingness to listen to his military commanders on the ground? No, you probably haven't. But you do seem to know a great deal about that traitor Cindy Sheehan. Good on 'ya.

Did you read about the hundreds of billions Rummy and Cheney spent on weapons systems that a) dont work or b) are totally inappropriate to combat the treats we face today? Once again, the military tried to help them out, but what does the military know about war? You see, Cheney, Rummy and the others are still re-living their glory days of the Cold War and visions of Star Wars still dance in their heads. Talk about a pre-9/11 mindset!

And what of our allies in the politically expedient and poorly named, War On Terror? In true egomaniacal, ignorant fashion he has basically told them to go fuck themselves despite the obvious fact that we cant end terrorism (or curb it) without the help of other nations.

And dont even pretend that Bush didn't lie to get us into this war. The evidence has been piling up for the past 2-3 years but the attitude of the media (and ofvapologists like yourself) has been "oh well, we're in Iraq, so what's the point of going back and looking at that?) The evidnece is too lengthy to list here but I have tried to keep up with it on my blog over the past year- luckily the british have been more willing to hold their representatives accountable and classified documents have been unclassified and clearly show Blair knew Saddam was no imminent threat, that he had no known nuclear capabilities and that the intelligence was being manipulated to reach Bush and Cheney's desired conclusion. So yes, the intelligence WAS fixed around the policy at the Behest of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

The claim that "the democrats had access to the exact same intelligence/info. the administration had" was predictably found to be utter bullshit"- select intelligence was purposely kept from both parties prior to their authorizing war. Murray Waas has documented in detail all the arguments Bush made KNOWING they were false. If you can stomach it, go read up on Ahmed Chalabi (under investigation by the FBI)Bush's so-called primary source for their "evidence" that Iraq was an imminent threat to us. Never mind the CIA told bush and cheney chalabi was a liar and had his own agenda but the problem was, Cheney's agenda was the same. Bush and Cheney wanted a war and they got it.

How in the world you can maintain any credibility while refusing to blame every last damn thing on your own personal political opponents is beyond me. I have never heard you place one ounce of responsibility on the shoulders of the man who is charge of this country. If he were a CEO (or any other employed person) he would have been fired. and in the cases where those who report to him screwed up (Libby, Cheney, Addington, Porter Goss, etc) it's basic knowledge that REAL leaders with character take responsibility for things that may not directly be their fault, but which are ultimately their responsibility.

But there we have it- Bush and his followers really don't have any real character traits of great leadership like some of those that came before him. Go read some of the books of historian Michael Bechloss about Churchill, Truman and FDR during WWII and you will learn what true leadership is.

Here's a good book you might want to read about Iraq and the military mission. It's devoid of ideology so you may not want to read it but I highly recommend it - its called COBRA II. Google it or go to amazon.

Have a nice weekend and hopefully we'll get to a point in this country [politically] where we can actually work together to advance this nation's goals- all of us, politicians, citizens, etc.

*Seth- Bush made claims prior to the war that he couldn't back up and
which have now been proven to be false (and which he knew were false
at the time he made them)*

Like what- that there were stockpiles of wmd, that every intel agency in the world, as well as Bill Clinton and Al Gore and the U.N. agreed with? Which way do you want it? The Democrats overwhelmingly voted
*with* the president. Were they more out- stupided by Mr. Stupid? I
think the wmd were taken to Syria.We'll find out sooner or later.
*he had no post-Saddam plan to prevent an insurgency and civil war,
had zero understanding of the realities on the ground (cultural,
religious, national, etc) that led to the insurgency and ignored the
advice of seasoned military commanders regarding what would ACTUALLY
be needed to stabilize Iraq (troop numbers, cost, etc).*

I disagree. Their have been 3 elections in Iraq, a completely unheard
of accomplishment in the Arab world and something to be noted and
built upon. Iraqi's, millions and millions of them, went to the polls
thrice to vote for a constitution - a constitution in the Middle
East! - and elect a government. The *plan* is to get a democracy up
and running in Iraq so the insurgency that IS islamo-fascism has to
challenge a democracy there, not here. Moreover, a democracy there is
inspiring to other nations in the region that want to live FREELY, as
we do, like Lebanon, many in the Palestinian territories, if not most
Iranians (did you see the 2000 Iranian students heckling Ahmadinejad
yesterday?).

*Bush and his cabal don't even know the difference between the
different ethnic groups in Iraq, as was made abundently clear
yesterday.*

Gee, I missed that. I guess I was paying attention to Pelosi's new
choice to run the House Intel committee, Silvestre Reyes -- he was
the one who didn't know Shiite from Sunni in a test given to him.
Pelosi could have suggested Jane Harmen for the job, you know, the
one most qualified for it? But, it's not in Nancy Pelosi's make-up
to choose someone who would be best for America, as was seen when she
endorsed Mr. Cut and Run Murtha for the Minority Leader's job that he
didn't get.

*And yet the administration and GOP continue to claim that they
couldn't predict the insurgency. Well, there are a legion of military
commanders, experts and intelligence analysts who beg to differ.*

And General Douglas McArthur insisted on nuking China and was fired
over it by President Truman -- the George W. Bush of his day. There
will always be commanders that disagree with the president. Lincoln
stuck with George McLellan for years before firing him and finding
the right man for the job, Ulysses S. Grant. Who ever said war went
smoothly?

Only the impatient Left thinks if you don't win immediately, then get
out. Now that's not a strategy. War is an ever-changing event that
must be adjusted to. That's what we're in the process of doing now -- adjusting. Personally, I hope President Bush comes up with a much
more muscular policy. I think he should send in more troops in an all- out effort to take control of Bagdhad. This is what I think he'll do.

Moreover, I think we should do anything but talk to Iran, the
fomenters, trianers and funders of a large swath of the terror in the
world. I think we should threaten iran, not with sanctions,but with
bunker busters. This what democrats I admire of the past, like Henry "Scoop" Jackson would have done. I am still a democrat, but not a supporter of any of today's feckless democrats, but of yesterday's, like Jackson.

It's time to say to Iran: we've offered to build
plants to supply electric energy (as if that was their real goal); In
2003, we sent the EU-3 to negotiate with you over your not going
nuclear to no avail; Your proxy, Hezbollah made war on our ally
Israel and continues to re-supply Hezbollah who now are threatening
an overthrow of Lebanon. if Iran does not stop its nuke program,
verifiable by U.S. inspectors, immediately, and does not stop
training and sending troops to kill our soldiers in Iraq, we should
threaten them with war. The Baker-Hamilton Iran-appeasement policy
is a disastrous idea akin to Neville Chamberlain hoping Hitler would
become a nice guy if we only gave him the Sudetenland. As Benjamin
Netanyahu recently said, "we're in 1938" and he was right. It's time to get tough, NOT to back down.

*Yet all you and your fellow neocons do is obsess over how its all
the democrats' fault. Real constructive.*

No, it's not all the Democrats fault. But, Democrats, in their
obsession with *getting* Bush has trumped any new ideas in winning
this very real war with al-Qaeda and metastasizing radical Islamistm
around the world. Juxtapose the speeches of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy,
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid with al-Zawahiri, al-Sadr, bin Laden and
Ahmadinejad and you won't be able to guess who said what. That's how
damaging the Left has been to the cause of winning World War III.

*What is it with you guys on the Right that you only love "personal responsibility" when it's some single mother with kids getting public assistance? If Bush "looks bad" he has only himself to blame. At the end of the day all you guys have is soundbites and ad hominem attacks.*

Um,not. At the end of the day, Bush immediately TOOK ACTION against
the Taliban, wiping them out in Afghanistan, made that country a
democracy, TOOK ACTION in Iraq to depose a mass killer in Saddam, and
is trying to stabilize Iraq as a democracy. Are there problems in all
these cases? Of course -- it's war, not a TV show where you can
change the channel if you don't like what you're watching
immediately. This struggle, as the president stated in 2002, will
take a long, long time -- NOT because of Bush's policies, but
because of the nature of the worthy challenge of democratizing the
Middle East again the forces of fascism.

*Maybe one day you will actually have enough respect for American
democracy that you'll find the courage to demand more from the people
who are elected to represent you. The irony is that you and the other
Bush apologists have set the bar so low for your President, that it
is YOU guys who make him look stupid.*

I don't apologize for president Bush. Actually, quite the opposite: I
admire him and glad he's the president -- a man who could have opted
for the quick political fixes of a Bill Clinton, but instead, doing
the heavy lefting necessary to achieve the goal of safeguarding
freedom in the world. Bush will be viewed, as was Harry Truman,
decades later, as a great president, who had the vision to take on
the bad guys instead of appeasing them as all previous presidents had
before.

The Middle East is filled with failed countries.Smack dab in the
middle of the region is tiny Israel --successful and free. No wonder
Israel has been made war upon: It's very existence is a reminder,
everyday to Arabs, that they are failing. But, the Arab world does
not have to fail. They can flourish and thrive but only by becoming
democracies. That is what George W. Bush is setting them on the
course to be. It's the right move. And it's the struggle we're
witnessing in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran:
one big civil war between those who want freedom and those that want
to deny freedom and want to establish a caliphate.

The American Left wants to bury its head in the sand, making believe
that Bush got us into a mess NOT al Qaeda who bombed us or Iran, who
is building a nuke for the sole purpose of bombing Israel an then
us. How deeply feckless. Really, what need do we have for liberals?
If they had worked with the president in our common cause to beat the
bin Ladenists, then they would have a credibile voice in the debate.
Instead, Ted Kennedy, stupidly claimed the president "cooked up" the war, Cindy Sheehan became the spokeperson for "America is evil, get
out of Iraq now" crowd, etc.

*After all, we all know if Bill Clinton had screwed up this much...*

If? He sure did a crack job of getting bin Laden when we had a clear
shot at him. But Monica Lewisnky was a "distraction" (his word).

*So keep harping on about the "real threat" facing America while ignoring the fact that your precious leader...*

Um, he's your leader too. Another example of how against your own
country you are. It's one thing to vehemently disagree with your
leader, but when you disavow him, thinking of him as the enemy, then
you're my enemy.

*...through his incompetence, stubbornness...*

"Confidence" to conservatives is "stubbornness" to Liberals.

*...and greedy...*

Yeah, those greedy Republicans...Last I looked, gas prices were at
around $2.30 cents. If Bush was "greedy", we'd be taking Iraq's oil and paying 30 cents a gallon at the pump. Now, what country do you
know in world history, lost it's own blood and treasure and didn't
take the precious natural resources of the country it occupied? Don't
bother to Google it. The answer is "none".

*..has made the threat that much greater.*

The "threat" was there way before George W. Bush was on the scene.
And it will be here when he leaves office. The difference is, he
confronted those that want to end Democracy. After 9/11, he was not
afraid of buildings being hit by hijacked planes, he was and is
afraid of nuclear or biological weapons killing millions of
Americans. He had two choices: give people of the region a chance for
a better life, which only democracy can do or to punish the hiackers
and hope it didn't happen again. That's what Clinton did and it
didn't work. Bush chose correctly and the right path is stay the
course. The Left used to be for freedom for all people, except of
course when George W. Bush tries to achieve it!

*If the Right keeps harping on about how everything is is someone
else's fault then you'll see support for the President and GOP fall
even further. No one respects a leader who won't take responsibility
for his/her actions/decisions, whether the results end up being good
or bad.*

Bush's poll numbers currently are at about 40 % according to
Rasmussenreports.com, the pollsters that got the 2004 election dead
on as well as the 2006 midterms. At at concurrent time in Harry
Trumans' presidency, his popularity numbers were at 22 per cent! But
he cared more about doing what was right (fighting the spread of
communsim in the unpopular Korean War), not about being liked. The
Left, consumed with both their hatred of Bush (because he won in
2000) and the their addiction to "being liked" over doing what's
right, that it's no wonder they think Bush is the devil -- kind of
like Hugo Chavez, huh?

Seth- Bush made claims prior to the war that he couldn't back up and which have now been proven to be false (and which he knew were false at the time he made them), he had no post-saddam plan to prevent an insurgency and civil war, had zero understanding of the realities on the ground (cultural, religious, national, etc) that led to the insurgency and ignored the advice of seasoned military commanders regarding what would ACTUALLY be needed to stabilize Iraq (troop numbers, cost, etc). Bush and his cabal don't even know the difference between the different ethnic groups in Iraq, as was made abundently clear yesterday. And yet the administration and GOP continue to claim that they couldn't predict the insurgency. Well, there are a legion of military commanders, experts and intelligence analysts who beg to differ.

Yet all you and your fellow neocons do is obsess over how its all the democrats' fault. Real constructive.

What is it with you guys on the Right that you only love "personal responsibility" when it's some single mother with kids getting public assistance? If Bush "looks bad" he has only himself to blame. At the end of the day all you guys have is soundbites and ad hominem attacks.

Maybe one day you will actually have enough respect for American democracy that you'll find the courage to demand more from the people who are elected to represent you. The irony is that you and the other Bush apologists have set the bar so low for your President, that it is YOU guys who make him look stupid.

After all, we all know if Bill Clinton had screwed up this much and wasted billions on defense systems that dont meet the needs of today's military, crony iraq contracts and a total refusal to take any responsibility for the consequences of the above, you'd have called for his head a long time ago. It's nothing but partisan drivel.

So keep harping on about the "real threat" facing America while ignoring the fact that your precious leader, through his incompetence, stubborness and greed, has made the threat that much greater.

If the Right keeps harping on about how everything is is someone else's fault then you'll see support for the President and GOP fall even further. No one respects a leader who won't take responsibility for his/her actions/decisions, whether the results end up being good or bad.