Well, Bush has brought some, or most, of this on himself, since the debacle in Iraq is leaving plenty room for liberals to discredit him re: what was to be his strong suit. But the bit about there being no WMD just shows how deeply entrenched the left is in ideology and pragmatics, since Saddam's intents were all about weapons development, given his neighbor's preoccupation with same - not to mention the assumption he had them, which everyone held early on.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174187,00.html

Here's how I grade him:

A+ - stimulating the U.S. economy through tax cuts
B - domestic policy. No Child Left Behind and proposed social security changes are great. Medicare prescription bill will help, too.
D - managing the federal budget; deficits are out of control.
C - leadership; lost ground since 9/11, and slipping; the Harriet Miers debacle didn't help, and neither did the hurricanes. Needs to make some changes in his staff.
C- - foreign policy. Relatively good work on the WOT; horrible in relating to old allies.

-------

re. lying about WMD/Iran . . . sheesh! Just goes to show how desperate the Dems have become! They're sounding more and more like . . . well, Moore, all the time! Can they come up with ONE ally that didn't believe Saddam had WMD?

How disappointed they are that there was no grand conspiracy uncovered by Fitzgerald . . . that only charge of perjury was filed against a Cheney staffer. Ridiculous to conclude that such proves the war was based on bogus intelligence. Yet, that's exactly what moveon.org has done, with the Senate Dems taking the cue and running with it.

Bad days for Democrats, and during a time with Bush's ratings are at an all-time low.

My grading:

B- U.S. economy: Tax cuts are a slippery slope when engaged in such a costly war, and too much outsourcing of middle class, along with borrowing money from China to pay for New Orleans instead of waiting a year to push Medicare part D through ;

C Domestic policy: Hard for me to grade him higher than this with his neglect of our borders;

D Federal budget;

D Leadership: he's lost strength in an area he
could have excelled in, and should have
tossed Rumsfeld in 2004;

D foreign policy: Higher marks earlier on, but pitful and ambivalent response to Israel's crisis, with little clout remaining now that Iraq is falling into the lap of terrorist organizations.


Wow, those look like my grades in high school . . . .

Grading:

A - War on Terror. Because there is no other standard to which to measure him against (that is, no one else before him was doing anything substantive). Perhaps we should do like they do in the (often corrupt, and almost always biased) Olympics and give the first few skaters intentionally lower scores so that it at least becomes possible to eclipse those scores with a better later performance should it come�a performance that we do not know whether or not it is forthcoming or even possible. So I�ll backtrack and give Bush a "B". But when one looks to Europe and their heavy denial of the problem, I�m thinking "B" is going to hold up for quite some time.

B � Economy. Forget ideology, just look at the very indicators such a poverty, unemployment, etc. Actually, his performance ought to be graded more on the "N/A" (not applicable) scale. The various grades should be handed out to us all�the ones who do all the living and dying in the various communities. Presidents do best when they just keep the government the hell out of the way as much as possible. The finest grade a president could receive would then be "N/A".

D- � government/political philosophy. Bush is a big government conservative, although that really ought to be an oxymoron. That shows just how much the paradigm of government, for better and for worse, has changed. It�s so friggin� ridiculous. We now expect the president to be personally responsible for flu�s and colds. The headline of all three papers this morning were regarding Bush�s plan on combating flu? My god, what in heaven�s name has that got to do with the functions of the president and/or the federal government? We�re on the verge of bankrupting everyone by trying to remove all vestiges of the reality that reality is going to harm and kill us in the end. What�s next? Is it going to be a hundred straight days of Ted Koppel and "Nightline" broadcasts when it is suddenly discovered the president�s plan for curing death is not working? Bush has heart-and-soul, tooth and nail, (and most of all), hand-over-fist (with all our money) bought into this concept.

Leave it to Jimmy Carter to dive into the fray:
- http://www.breitbart.com/news/...11/02/D8DKFLGG1.html

I wonder when Jesse Jackson will show up?

Leave it to Jimmy Carter to dive into the fray:

Democrats may delude themselves into thinking they are fulfilling the role of constitutional �checks and balances� in their part as the "loyal opposition". But their deranged notion in regards to Bush supposedly lying about WMDs is so far off base that the best one can call their governmental minority role is that of court jester.

Today on Rush�s show he read several entries from Democrats regarding their warnings about Saddam�s WMD�s�at a time before the Bush II presidency.

This is just slanderous politics at its worst. There�s not an ounce of honesty or credibility to their argument. That they still feel secure in making such flagrantly bogus claims tells you a lot about the electorate, I�m sad to say.

Some kind of snowball effect is underway, with even more moderate voices like USA Today piling on now. It seems the perception of Bush as "uncaring" and unresponsive after hurricane Katrina is partly to blame, as is the Iraq war dragging on. The recent accusation by Dems that he skewed intelligence pre-Iraq has also found traction among a number of Senators and, again, even the likes of USA Today. Then there's the deficit.

This is all baffling because:

1. I still don't understand after two other threads of extensive discussion what Bush did after hurricane Katrina that was so bad. FEMA seemed to fall down in places, as did the state and local people. But good heavens -- what a natural disaster, and no communications to help coordinate things! Did I miss something here?

2. Iraq: what did people expect a year ago when they re-elected him? Since then, there've been two elections with a third coming soon, which will establish a constitutional government. Sure, the insurgency has been hot -- they don't want this to happen.

3. WMD intelligence -- sheesh! When the CIA director tells you that WMD in Iraq is a "slam dunk," what's the Pres. to think? And besides, anyone who thinks that's the only legitimate justification for going to war doesn't really understand what's going on there, nor the WOT. There's no hope of reasoning with such people, and that this now includes a majority of senators and US media is a sad situation indeed.

4. The deficit -- that's totally on the Republicans' heads. They control both houses and the presidency. Do something or you'll be booted out!

It may well be that the rest of Bush's 2nd term will be in lame duck fashion, but that's not entirely his fault, for it seems there are many in congress and the media who will do just anything to put Democrats back in power. The 2008 election has already begun in many ways, with the stakes being such that anyone closely identified with Bush and his policies is being put on notice. Cowardly Republican senators are listening, wondering which way the wind will blow while the American people, who are largely ignorant of what's going on in Iraq and why (no fault of the White House, imo), are still under the sway of the anti-Bush media-fest following Katrina.

In my worst moments, I wonder whether this or any other Western country has the stomach any more to do what is necessary to address some of the hard problems facing modern civilization. I know, however, that lame duck or not, Bush will see things through in Iraq and will continue to press ahead with some of his other programs.

Bush needs our prayers, as do all of our national leaders. Please remember them in your petitions.

Good analysis, Phil. I'm listening to Roger Hitchcock (Rush's vacation replacement) and he played a few VP Cheney quotes. Cheney's givin' 'em heck...the kind of heck they deserve.

VDH blasts the Bush-lied people out of the water!
http://www.nationalreview.com/...nson200511180818.asp

Ha! What a coincidence. I just got back into the office, ate a late, late lunch while reading that article about five minutes ago. Yeah, I think it's a good one too.

That's a late, late lunch all right, even allowing for time zones. Of course, that way you don't really need to eat supper -- not that I would ever pass up a meal, no matter what the time, of course.

White is black and black is white.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Howard Dean has suggested that Bush and his "inner" circle had plotted to overthrow Hussein even before Bush became President. Oil as motive.

The reality is that Clinton as President signed into law legislation for regime change in Iraq earmarking some 500 million dollars to develop a dissident network to work from the outside in to weaken and overthrow Hussein. It was I believe the only such regime change legislation ever "officially" on the books as policy.

What Dean says is really the opposite of the facts. But all the news stories are like that. Katrina the CIA "leak" it just goes on and on.

Politicians make false statements on what is going on everyday and never are challenged. What they say is not just unchallenged but broadcast on local news as though it were fact.

The politicians are actually saying things like if I knew what I know now I would have not voted yes to go to war. How do these people get elected in the first place.

I think I have posted this link before of a letter written by President Hoover in February 1933 to Senator Simeon Fess (R-OH) the Republican Whip on Hoover's views of the depression. It is a short historical record that surmises for me a greater context of just what politics does to this nation and the world.

To gain power in the early thirties the democrats used the politics of fear to erode consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is what drives the economy. What pushed the country into depression was not Hoovers policy but the fear of the policy the democrats were putting forward. Even the fear of what Roosevelt was proposing caused the depression to take place. Roosevelt saying we have nothing to fear but fear itself is completely crafted. The fear had come from his own political motives. Once in office Roosevelt's policies do nothing to turn the economy around. Unemployment never recovers until the war in europe starts. A war that eventually causes the death of tens of millions of people. The facts to Roosevelt's years in office point more to Roosevelt being argue-ably the worst President in our nations history. Massive unemployment. World war killing tens of millions of people. Then policy during the war that helped create the cold war that lasted another 50 years the effects of which we are still feeling today. North Korea even Hussein is a cold war communist.

http://www.amillionthanks.org

Here is a high school student who is doing something positive, sending a million thank you letters to the troops. It's more important now than ever to support these true heroes who are so willing to lay down their lives for freedom and democracy, God and country. The younger folks are showing us how to do it!