So while Saddam had no WMD's he had all of the tools and ingredients to make them? Semantics. This is ridiculous.

It's like going to a restaurant for breakfast and they say the chef is out of omelettes. (But he has eggs, ham, onions, cheese, bell peppers and a stove to cook them on)

I think history will look much more kindly upon Bush than we do now. While I agree that he has done some things very poorly, the over-arching objective of his administration (the war on terror) has been an overall success.

I guess I'd rather be right than popular, but for such an "educated" society there sure is a lot of stupidity flying around.

Well said, Quaid.

For my part, I've always thought Bush is great. I think history will judge him far more kindly than the current deranged, hateful judgements of our society.

And, though it's a subject of a later post, if he had a "D" after his name, he's be hailed as the liberator of fifty million people.

(of course, if he had a "D" after his name, he never would have accomplished what he has. Because he would have wimped out as soon as the opinion polls turned against him).

Again, subject for a later post - but what I've always loved about Bush is that he's not driven by the polls. And I believe he'll sleep well at night after he's out of power.

I remember back in the 1980s when President Reagan was vilified by his opponents as being a cowboy and dangerous and destined to bring on the world's annihilation by mutual nuclear destruction. 20+ years later, he is remembered far more favorably. He wasn't a perfect President, but he was pretty effective leader and visionary.

I suspect that in 20+ years, President Bush II will be remembered similarly. I think he's made some mistakes, but they're mostly on the home front. I think his focus on the War on Terror caused him to lose sight of some domestic issues, but I'll take those mistakes over another terrorist attack here in the US.

And, though it's a subject of a later post, if he had a "D" after his name, he's be hailed as the liberator of fifty million people.

You forget how big an audience the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Hewitts have. He'd be trashed just as much, just from the other side. Nothing reigns higher than party in this country.

Well, we might have to agree to disagree on this one :-) I believe if Kerry had been elected and had done what Bush has done in Iraq, he would be considered a huge success. And - I hope, conservatives wouldn't have switched over to wanting defeat in Iraq the moment Kerry took the helm the way Democrats did for Bush. I hope like crazy I wouldn't have been that way.

But . . . woulda, coulda, shoulda - we never can know how things would have gone.

You're right, in the 90s H, L and H trashed Clinton all day long. But when it comes to the mainstream media, there appears, at least to me, to be a strongly anti-Bush slant.

( I personally don't consider H, L, and H to be news. I consider them to be entertainment, primarily. And, regardless of their audience, they still don't have the reach of, say, CNN).

Case in point - the article I quote in this post regarding the successes in Iraq. The meme in the press in the U.S. is that Iraq is a disaster, so you won't find many articles going against that meme.

Again, we might have to agree to disagree. The debate over media bias has raged for decades. Liberals generally, for instance, consider Fox News to be hopelessly slanted (while simultaneously praising the even-handedness of, say, the New York Times). Conservatives go the other way.

My goal, regardless of who the next president is, is to not let party reign as a top value - for me, at least. What's best for the country should be the goal. I've been sickened by the factions in this country transparently wanting us to be defeated in Iraq. I hope I'm never like that. Thankfully, at least at this point, the facts on the ground are running contrary to that conventional wisdom.

You might find the Anchoresses post that I reference in this post to be pretty funny. She's a lot better at this stuff than I am.

For what it's worth, I first read about the recent success in Iraq in the NY Times :).

I agree that there is an anti-Bush slant in the mainstream media, but I don't think Republicans would have been the "bigger men" had Kerry or Gore done the same thing in Iraq. And I say that knowing that there are plenty of exceptions to that, you included.

And I wouldn't downplay the reach of Conservative media. Limbaugh just signed the largest contract in radio history, more people watch Fox News than any other cable news network, and Bill O'Reilly still holds the top rated cable news show (which doesn't explain why he lies about his numbers).

I think you're right though, the media played a big part in de-popularizing the war, and now that a lot of good news is coming out of there, they aren't talking about it much. And you're right, arguing about what might have happened if so-and-so was elected is pretty pointless.

Thanks.

For what it's worth, I first read about the recent success in Iraq in the NY Times :)

Touche and good point! :-)

Thanks for posting this Bill. Very refreshing and encouraging to hear. I hear things like this all the time, but it seems to never really get outside of the "military circle." We so badly need the media to start picking up on all of the great stories coming home from the Middle East. It would completely change countless Americans who limit themselves to getting their news from CNN only. Is everything perfect? Absolutely not. But there is so much great news coming back that the media just refuses to cover because it doesn't get as much attention. But what can we do?

Regardless, thank you for your post.