Rod Dreher has some excellent extension of her remarks here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/2007/06/noonan-to-bush-its-over.html

From this column, we can conclude that Peggy Noonan is a little slow. She figured out the blindingly obvious after only 4 years of the Bush administration. "Too bad" has been their mantra since about day 1.

Don't like me breaking my campaign promises about regulating CO2? "Too bad." Don't like me locking up 68,000 pages of Reagan's records despite the Presidential Records Act? "Too bad." Don't like me looking the other way as Enron causes rolling blackouts in California? "Too bad." Etc.

Conservatives don't blame Enron for California's failure to construct power plants in keeping with the growing demand for energy in that state. They blame environmentalist lobbying.

Most conservatives don't know about Bush locking up the Reagan records - or it's old news and just about everyone forgot.

The main beefs are spending, immigration, and insufficient aggression in the Iraq War. They also perceive that Bush is soft on Israel's enemies.

The main beefs are . . . insufficient aggression in the Iraq War. They also perceive that Bush is soft on Israel's enemies.

I find this to be a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Rod Dreher captures my feelings about the Noonan piece perfectly: reject Bush, yes, but realize/own up to the fact that his presidency would never have been able to play out as it has without willing participation of the conservative movement:

"I've got no strong objection to Noonan's analysis, and indeed I'm thrilled to see it. But it seems to me that we conservatives need to avoid falling into a historical revisionism that allows us to portray ourselves as passive victims of a feckless president. Not saying she does this, but I think as the last wheel comes off this presidency, and the GOP comes to grips with what this presidency has meant for the Republican Party and the conservative movement, there will be a strong temptation to resist owning up to our own complicity. Success has a thousand fathers, after all, and failure is an orphan. This failure is not President Bush's alone. The Republican Party owns it. The conservative movement, with some exceptions, owns it."

The conservatives I know believe that while our military in Iraq has been more successful in Iraq than is often credited, it hasn't been as thorough as it could have. They feel that Bush is unusually paranoid about collateral damage. (The powers-that-be certainly did display such paranoia regarding this incident in Afghanistan.) Conservatives woudl like to see more action particularly in Anbar.

As for Israel, giving money to the Palestinians is certainly a sign of softness toward Israel's enemies.

In general, conservatives are unhappy with the conventional wisdom that productive peace talks can be accomplished with people who want Israel destroyed, and they perceive that the administration has bought the CW. They want Israel to fight to win its war on terror, and they perceive that our government is squeamish about Israel fighting back.

This headline offers another example, of both softness and cluelessness: US State Department: Lebanon Is Not Responsible for Hezbollah. The Council of Foreign Relations doesn't buy this claim, if it follows the logical conclusions of facts reported in one of articles:

"After the 2005 elections, Hezbollah won fourteen seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament. In addition, Hezbollah has two ministers in the government, and a third is endorsed by the group."

(Hezbollah is an enemy to more than just Israel - scroll down to the heading "What major attacks is Hezbollah responsible for?" in the CFR article.)

Talk about your dead-enders...