Kristol must be smoking crack. Presdient Bush is a complete failure. He has done more to harm conservative politics than any 10 Democrats.

The most likely President Bush legacy is that we will be the last Republican President because his actions destroyed public support for any conservative idea.

Nothing makes one a winner more than winning.

That's why liberals are mostly losers. They self-destruct (Rosie, Michael Moore et al) and limit their own success.

I think Bush has blown it on issues like immigration to the point where he won't be considered one of the better presidents.

And for history to be kind on the War on Terror/Middle East it won't be easy. Any increase in terrorist activity will be placed at Bush's feet "because of Iraq" or other excuse. Unless there is a remarkably clear and immediate contrast in terrorist activity, the ensuing revisionism will make it nearly impossible for Bush to be considered correct across political lines any time soon.

Not to mention his handling of the War has not been impressive. The Surge should have happened a long time ago both for its battlefront and homefront value. His lateness and lack of combating criticism and distortion over issues like Abu Garib, Koran flushing, and Haditha has also hurt.

President Bush "successful?" For Saudia Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, and Iran maybe, but not the U.S.

Kim;

I would have thought, by now, you would begin to acknowledge the projection you employ in your mental mechanism with the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome". It was, and ever shall be a function
of your unfettered obeisance to all things Republican.

Nothing like a plus for Bush to get the far left wackos up and running early. lmao

William Kristol won't ruin his 100%-wrong prediction streak with this one.

Anoother must read Kristol article on Iraq to go with all his other earlier must read 'predictions' on the war..April 4, 2003 "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular..or March 22, 2004 "[T]here are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath." Kristol is always going from 'hope to hope' that some day Bush may be right about the war. Meanwhile...

How dare those dirty libs criticize Dear Leader in a time of war.

Bill Kristol knows and all great Americans know that all Dear Leader needs to win the GWOT is the return to single party rule in America.

Dear Leader should not be distracted from his quest by those ungrateful dirty lib politicians in Washington asking all those irrelevant questions.

Dear Leader has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and he will do so by what ever means Dear Leader feels necessary.

Praise be to Dear Leader and God Bless America.

The liberals embrace of anything that damages GW is telling. Kim, BDS will remain with us for a while. Until then, the conservatives will have to unite behind the troops. ww

President Bush is a huge success. He helped to expose the traitors and frauds that is the democrat party of hate, jealousy and incompetance.I no longer will vote for democrats and none of you whiny little retards can change that. Bush wins you lose.

Kristol must have had a real big gulp of the kool-aid.

The rest of Bill's piece is really interesting, particularly the part about the war in Iraq because he provides information about the war that the rest of the mainstream media refuses to report:

What information is that? The extract you post doesn't give any. I see a lot of unsupported claims -- the same ones we've been hearing from the White House for four years -- but no information.

"What information is that? The extract you post doesn't give any."

This is why democrats should be ran out of the Country. Well at least any position of power or responsibility. Dimwitted democrats ask "What information is that"? IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS STUPIDS. Democrats are stupid ignorant people. You will realize this when you begin to think for yourselves. There are things that we do not need to know yet the incompetant traitors aka democrats purposely leak out. People get killed because of it. As if you didn't know with your fake outrage and false accusations with three years of your lame "PLAMEGATE".

The only way you rats will ever change or learn anything is when your leaders are been lined up and shot before your very eyes.It's long overdue.

The one thing that makes me believe Bush's legacy will be a good one is the raw, unadulterated hatred of him by the rabid left. They savaged Reagan in much the same way, albeit slightly less. And Reagan's legacy is intact--a shining legacy.

Why would anybody, even desperate Bush supporters pay attention to what Kristol has to say? The guy has been wrong about virtually everything. If you want to make yourself look crazy keep labeling his stuff "must read". It'll make Wizbang a must ignore.

"If you want to make yourself look crazy keep labeling his stuff "must read". It'll make Wizbang a must ignore"

Yet here YOU are.

"He has done more to harm conservative politics than any 10 Democrats."

How would you know you Rat?

"his actions destroyed public support for any conservative idea."

Again,How would you possibly know being a commie liberal rat? Assuming you are of the the "I don't know a single person who voted for Bush" crowd, there is little else you can claim to know about. You are loser flapping his yap.

IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS STUPIDS. ... There are things that we do not need to know ... You will realize this when you begin to think for yourselves.

Oh, okay. :-|

CLUE:
Bush being judged as the "worst president ever" is not a FAD.

Whe the left looks at everything through the prism of GW Bush hatred, they cannot objectively think (oxymoron) of our place in history. Obsessive they are. Our President will stand the test of time no matter what the lefties think. ww

live@9 - may I suggest you contact Lee "Edward Smith" Ward for a "prized" position at Blue?

I think they need some water carriers over their (pun intended). You should fit right in.

Kathy

What information is that? The extract you post doesn't give any.

Perhaps you fail to understand the word "extract." Extract: a passage taken from a book, article, etc.; excerpt; quotation.

Does that help? Maybe you should take the suggestion and follow the link it may, I stress the word may, give you a clue as to the post authors meaning.

On the other hand if you did follow the link maybe you should comment specifically what part you disagree with. What is it about the statement the "mainstream media refuses to report" do you take issue with?

"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion . . . it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could." - Walter Cronkite, February 27, 1968"

Kristol has written an excellent contrarian piece. It so unsettles the Left because it temporarily removes them from their echo chamber.And it reminds them of their worst nightmare....that the surge may indeed work when they borrowed all they had to sell it short.

Yes, lets heap praise upon a columnist who, like the administration, has been wrong every step of the way.

Only idiots and very impressionable people (i.e. 29% and sinking) still believe the tripe these people are dishing out. If you want to be this gullible and subservient to propoganda, please move to North Korea. Or, go back in time and become one of the Hitler youth.

hansel2

Or, go back in time and become one of the Hitler youth.

I'll pass that along to Kristol, who is a Jew. I'm sure he will make his way to the time machine asap. Let's hope he stumbles over some " idiots and very impressionable people" before he gets there.

You are a moron.

I love it when the left's BDS goes out of control.

They just can't accept that Dubya will be considered by history to be far, far superior to that Middle East "scholar," Jimmah Cahtah.

However, Kim, you need to ask one of the Wizbang janitors to mop up the lefty froth on the floor.

Last night we were discussing the removal of Churchill from the GB curriculum via Betsey Newmark and what do we get tonight? Hansel and her Jew baiting/ignorance with the Hitler youth remark.

Hansel's remark about Kristol should be front and center in any discussion of the curriculum.

Oh, by the way, Hansel... Kristol has been critical of Bush's strategy in the war in the past (as pointed out in the quotes Kim posted above). I imagine he was the darling of the left when he did that, wasn't he?

Ahh, there is nothing like a lefty scorned. You thought Kristol was gonna call for a withdrawal, didn't ya?

Kevin
Maybe you should make Wizbang Blue a college....complete with Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior classes.

Here's the hard part...Admissions.

Let's look at the example above: Hansel

Should Hansel be a Freshman? Remedial classes only?

Or is he/she a PhD candidate flying under the radar?

Higher Ed is complicated, isn't it?

Gee... where's live@9 and Kathy?

Guess they thought (hard to believe I know) it was Halloween, donned a "seagull" costume and dropped their little turds of wisdom and flew on.

Or maybe Kathy is still attempting decipher the meaning of "extract?"

And maybe I should exercise my apparent new "found powers" and comment on hansel2 also.

Maybe he/she/IT will disappear also.

Should Hansel be a Freshman? Remedial classes only?

Special Ed!

marc
You would be an excellent choice for Dean of Admissions....
-------------------------------------------

(((Hansel2)))....report to the dean's office NOW!And bring your KOS reading points!

marc
Should have included some snark with my post. It was meant as a compliment to you. You are a good Wizbanger!

Since there are so many people so confident that Kristol was wrong, I was looking forward to the substantive rebuttal of Kristol in the comments above.

Guess I'll be waiting for quite a while.

"Guess I'll be waiting for quite a while."

Quite.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015397.php

Have at it Marc.

Democrats, the party of felons and criminal frauds think they have something to say.

Hansel's remark about Kristol should be front and center in any discussion of the curriculum.

I guess you're not having any luck trying bait people into thinking there's something even remotely bigoted about my remarks, are you Hugh? Examples of propaganda working on impressionable minds are North Korea and the Hitler youth. Nothing unique there and a familiar thought line -- but If you want to try to do the Bush administration trick of taking pretty self-explanatory observations and sentences and trying to twist them into something completely and utterly different, go at it. It just shows your desperation to try to change the subject - and those who are impressionable and/or stupid enough to believe your trick proves my point.

but If you want to try to do the Bush administration trick of taking pretty self-explanatory observations and sentences and trying to twist them into something completely and utterly different

Hansel2,
No twisting was required. You said it very clearly yourself.

It just shows your desperation to try to change the subject

A response worthy of the master himself, Goebbels.Just admit it when you pry your foot from your throat.

"Yes, lets heap praise upon a columnist who, like the administration, has been wrong every step of the way."

Even when he thought like you?:

"In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful."

Who now is twisting this into something completely different?

Hey, looky! jp2 just admitted that he uses talking points... literally! I gotta bookmark this page, it's gonna come in real handy in future "debates" with jp2.

How's the weather in Boise today, jp2?

Since Hansel has now brought up Hitler twice, I hereby declare Godwin's Law in effect.

Therefore, Hansel has lost the debate.

Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Marc,

Kim wrote:

The rest of Bill's piece is really interesting, particularly the part about the war in Iraq because he provides information about the war that the rest of the mainstream media refuses to report:

Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.
Where is the information that Kim tells us is contained in "this part about the war in Iraq." Do you know what the word "part" means? It's a selection from the whole, not the whole itself. Where is the information in this "part" that Kim tells us is in this quote that she quotes for us?

Sorry for the messed-up coding. I'm going to post it again, the more low-tech way. Kim's quote from Kristol is in quote marks, with her intro in ital above it. My comment is below Kristol's quote.

Let's hope it works this time.

Kim wrote:

The rest of Bill's piece is really interesting, particularly the part about the war in Iraq because he provides information about the war that the rest of the mainstream media refuses to report:

"Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

"Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

"If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq."

Where is the information that Kim tells us is contained in "this part about the war in Iraq." Do you know what the word "part" means? It's a selection from the whole, not the whole itself, and Kim tells us the information is in said part. Where is it?

I've often said that we don't know how History will treat Bush.

The pure confidence of those who hate him makes me think that they really aren't being even slightly objective about it. Worst president ever? I don't know how. Yes, it seems a whole lot like BDS has taken over for thought and considering the other things that the same people get wrong, like the supposed damage to conservative thought...

How?

I don't see how conservative thought has been harmed. Conservatives haven't suddenly turned into liberals. My impression is that Objectivism and libertarianism have gained slightly but not in a liberal direction.

The economy is good.

People in the US are doing well.

The *war* is a big picture sort of question and without the perspective of at least a decade if not more we *can not* know. Even a "win" isn't something we can judge without time to test it.

Pakistan seems to be in a war now with it's radical Islamic element. That seems a rather new thing to me. For all of this time they've been being careful not to get into it and we've kept our distance, respected Pakistan's borders.

In effect, they've been trying to get along with their radical Islamic element by being nice. By keeping it cool with the US. And now we're seeing how well that worked.

Bush isn't the only actor in this drama. He's not the only one making decisions. Other events from now until well into this century will influence how Bush's presidency is viewed.

Even if we leave Iraq without a victory because of a lack of resolve and a new, anti-war, president... if Islamic extremism doesn't poof into ether... History may well judge that GEORGE BUSH WAS RIGHT.

If we "win" in Iraq and it turns into a stable democracy and Islamic extremism drops to next to nothing, History may well judge that GEORGE BUSH WAS RIGHT.

That may really chap some folks but a whole lot of people out there in the world are not reading the American liberal's script about human behavior, cause and effect. It didn't help Pakistan to play nice. It's not helping Europe to play nice. Islamic terrorism and extremism is an issue far beyond American belief that we are the center of the Universe and that nothing happens that George Bush did not personally cause.

Neoconservative guru, Bill Kristol, was one of the main architects of the Iraq War, starting back in 1996 or even earlier, according to his Project For The New American Century website and organization. And nearly every asumption of his has been dead wrong about he believed would be an easy mission that would be with big benefits for the U.S. such as more oil.

Kristol seemed to have his 2006 election predictions dead wrong as well, with few exceptions while Rasmussen and Scott Elliot's Election Projection were right on the money.

From that basis, I'm highly wary of any further predictions from this less than psychic figure of the neoconservative world.

Paul, no offence, but you also are seldom right. So why should be bother responding to you? ww

Read John Perkins books.....From a man who participated in the grand charade underwritten by the likes of the PNAC you folks are being played for chumps. They know it, you apparently don't.

GW Bush will end up being a winner only if the rest of us continue being losers. Congratulations to those in the Faux Kristol camp who define victory by securing the worlds oil resources which the use of will define the next resource war for water. It will earn you (and the rest of us) decades if not generations of life in the abyss. Thanks for nothing.

Hooson, what did you think about Kristol when he was criticizing the Iraq war?

Just wanna make sure there's no hypocrisy going on here.

CB , you are a loser and stuck in your own abyss. Trust me , nobody wants to join you in your misery, not now not ever.

Rob,

Care to actually address the disaster promulgated by the visions of extending American empire using the American military force as pawns or is screaming from the bleachers na na na na na more your style?

Have I even once read an intelligent defense from you as to why the majority of the American public and now even some of the loyal bushies are calling foul the war the Emporer without clothes continues to mismanage? Do you not read the endless dissertations written by respectab;e icons of philosophy, science, psychology or humanities as to the dysfunctinal and despotic manuevers by a small group of power hungry induviduals that you espouse as your saviours?

is this so far over your head that you are unable to digest the trickery and guile? Reading is real power and I sugget you get started. But first turn off the entertainement channels i.e.MBC CBS, ABC,FOX, CNN) and get into the real books. You will be amazed what you might learn.

File under: wishful thinking.

Here's what's for sure: conservatives, almost all of them Republican, voted for Bush and put him in office twice. I expect that includes nearly everyone on this site.

Therefore, you own at least partial responsibility for all of his policies and decisions, and their aftermath on this country and it's future.

And you can't say that you didn't know what was coming, because we liberals and progressives have been telling all of you, including Bill Kristol.

because we liberals and progressives have been telling all of you, including Bill Kristol.

Yeah,
You tellum Jim. You go boy!

The only reason I voted for him is because Al "I get free carbon offsets from my own company so I can heat my huge mansion" Gore and John "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" Kerry were worse.

Exactly, C-C-G.

A whole lot of people voted for Bush while they held their noses because the Democrats absolutely refused to run a pro-war candidate. Sure, Bush wasn't doing a very good job of things, but we weren't given the option of someone who would do better.

And in the end it's not nearly as much about Bush as it is about the fact that in this globalized society and highly technological world the ravings of fanatics on the other side of the world *matter*. We aren't protected by oceans or mountain ranges or simple geographical distance like people used to be.

Bush didn't create the threat. It's really got nothing to do with him at all. What happens now, as we see things in Iraq changing, is that if it gets significantly better, those of us who "own" the war get credit for being right.

If things get significantly worse, those of us who "own" the war get credit for being right about the threat.

How ever well he's *done*, Bush has advocated an important change in how we deal with foreign policy. He's tried (as a new post points out up there) to work a small footprint war that concentrates on justice for the people of a nation, all of them, rather than picking the guy most likely to be able to hold power and hoping that he'll hold us in favor afterward for putting him there.

Democrats, both elected and in comments on places like this blog, have insisted that we want puppets because it's *obvious* that we would never really want a country to run their own affairs since they might not do what we want. That control is the necessary goal.

When, no matter how poorly executed, Bush is talking about the right of every person to liberty (and a government that makes that possible.) It doesn't matter if they aren't "yes men". It matters that there is a functional model of a muslim democracy with enough wealth to move forward into this century... to offer an alternative to the standard fare over there were all of the various ways citizens hold their governments accountable are broken.

I sometimes wonder if that's not one reason that BDS is so bad. Bush has taken liberal causes and promoted them overseas... doing something about the root causes of Islamic terrorism.

Bush is CEO of the world and adding stakeholder value daily, even for the sullen. Cheney is his COO. If the Board of Directors fails to find adequate replacement, sell.
=========================

Interesting, Kim.

I define shareholder value as money, power, and stability.

We have less money, are in greater debt, have more poverty, have worse schools, are in a two-front war and have become distanced from our allies...while terrorism has increased, according to the US government itself.

I guess when it comes to defining shareholder value, I'm a conservative?

you tellum, jim

Thanks Hugh! Glad to have your support. :)