First, a little background: I voted for Bill Clinton, both times, but was never shy about bashing him when he deserved it. One of my conservative friends tells me that by a certain point in the second term, I was the only person he knew who would still admit that I voted for Bill and His Frisky Boys. I liked many things about him, and I was absolutely furious with him by the time the second term ended -- and I was the same person, politically, no matter what.
So I have a hard time understanding some of the defense of Bush -- and his handling of Iraq -- from people whom I would otherwise expect to have a more balanced perspective. For example...
For example, one poster over at
tacitus will talk about his disdain for Douglas Feith, his frustration with Cheney, his criticism of Rumsfeld; yet his support for Bush is unwavering. Well, you know, it would be one thing if GWB was indicating, in any way, that he was displeased with these folks, but he's doing the opposite. ("Donald Rumsfeld is a superb Secretary of Defense.") How can one fail to be at all critical of the CEO when his favored staff are screwing up left and right?
Another defense of Bush is one I mentioned a few days ago: Bush understands what is necessary in the War on Terror, he has the commitment, the vision, etc. The folks who make this argument are defeating themselves, it seems to me, because as I've said -- if you truly believe in bringing democracy to Iraq, in being pre-emptive, in showing our power and might to the world...then George W. Bush is your worst nightmare, because his implementation of those ideas has turned the majority of the country against them. You're not going to get another chance for a good long while.
And then there's this ranting that says "the media wants us to lose in Iraq so George Bush will be defeated." What?? Isn't it clear to everyone that the media was completely cooperative in supporting this war? That people like Miller and Russert were simply stenographers and megaphones for the administration and its partners? If you supported the war, the media did nothing but help your cause. So...oh, I don't have time for this. Just shut up.
And then there are the folks like Andrew Sullivan. I've said before that I enjoy reading Andy's blog and appreciate his willingness to think out loud and change his mind from day to day -- but he is the epitome of lame with this jewel. First of all, the Letter From A Soldier Who Tells The Truth About Iraq is just not effective. Someone else can easily turn up a letter from A Soldier Who Tells A Completely Different Truth About Iraq -- but more importantly, I'm not basing my opinion of how things are going by watching the news or reading those letters. There are plenty of facts that tell the story. Casualties suffered. Money spent (Hey, it's even a FOXNews link!). The details (and lack thereof) about the "transition." The confusion and scariness of homeland security (The Washington Times, for goodness' sake!). I agree - the media stinks these days, but pretending that we'd all be feeling better about things if only we could read more letters from soldiers is naive.
And just to put the sorry cherry on his sundae of lameness, Andrew mentions that Baghdad might be seen as a higher degree version of his own DC "gangs & drugs" neighborhood, where bad things happen but life goes on and is often Just Fine. Reading that, all I could think was, "Where is this 'DC' you speak of? There are problems with drugs and gangs? Are you sure? Because I haven't heard the President talking about anything like that."