Honestly, I think the reason Bush was re-elected was because the voters, in their common-sense wisdom, decided that he ought to clean up the mess that he started (and that Kerry would likely bungle things even more). Assuming the above is true, it seems that Bush has not only not gotten that message, but he has deluded himself into thinking that he can save things if he just appoints the right Czar to handle it.

Ron Paul is right - we are solidify our empire via our culture hegamony and military threats. And yet, the Visigoths are already at our gates, while Nero works out!

My opinion is that neither Tolstoy nor Bush's presumed worldview is entirely correct. A great leader is neither a potter at his wheel, nor a feather on the wind. A great leader is like the captain of a sailboat. He controls neither the wind nor the current, but with the requisite skill he can guide the motion of the vessel.

As far as Bush "undemocratically pursuing a loathed war," it has hardly been the case that for the past several years he has chosen to remain in Iraq as opposed to some clearly better option. Ever since Saddam's regime was ousted, the question of whether to withdraw our troops has been "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Furthermore, the frustration with the continued chaos in Iraq is felt by every American, but I'm puzzled as to why virtually all the finger-pointing is aimed at Bush. We cannot impose peace on Iraq; the Iraqis must step up and take control of their own country. If there has been any "miserable failure" in the Iraq affair, the Iraqi leadership certainly qualifies. I suspect that sometime shortly after the '08 election, a major troop withdrawal will commence, with the U.S. throwing up our hands and saying that after 5 years of trying to pacify the country, we have to let them sink or swim on their own.

Good post.

You know, I just thought of something...

The Army has been saying that counterinsurgency war takes 8-10 years to win. That would put the end of this war solidly in Hillary's watch.

She has every reason to keep the status quo: Blame Bush, or take credit for peace breaking out!

While the Dems in Congress have only recently grown spines with regards to GWB, the GOPers still have not. Unlike media pundits and Mitch McConnell, I do not think Sept, or Nov, will be any kind of magical GOP congressional turning point as the Petraeus report will not be definitive either way.

I can only go by track records, so con'td obeisance from the congressional GOP towards their pres is fully what I'm expecting. There will be no GOP turning away from GWB, but there will be lots of finger pointing and blame shifting that will last well into the next (Dem) administration, and beyond. I wouldn't pin ANY hopes on this crew of GOP congressional... (Ugh. Words escape me, at least on this family view-friendly blog).

The results of Bush's leadership should certainly give pause to liberals about about the ability to change human behavior by law or regulation as opposed to the availing of and submission to God's grace.

For true conservatives, the problem with Bush's approach isn't merely with the results but with the process itself, albeit that if Bush had had more success in foreign and military matters, his ratings among those who consider themselves conservative would be much higher. Conservatives should also admit, for instance, that our Cuban policies my be driven more by day-to-day-politics than conservative ideology. In this instance, many conservatives seem to lack confidence that opening up trade with that nation would engender change toward freedom more rapidly than trade restrictions do. I enjoy working crosswords, but one of my limitations is that my mind is often committed to a certain way of thinking that makes easy questions into hard ones. For instance, in yesterday's "NEA" crossword, I became stuck on 27-down because I was invested in a more narrow view of the definition of "queen."

For liberals who agree with the process -- that is, the ability of society to effect change through law -- there is at least the warning of one of the greatest weaknesses among those who believe in the power of government to bring change and that is the obstinate and egotistical refusal to evaluate whether programs enacted actually work. Liberals too often stay wedded to programs that clearly are clearly ineffective because admitting that they have failed is considered an acknowledgment that there is something wrong with the process itself. Bush seems to have done that with respect to Iraq policies.