"Why Bush will be a Winner"

I realize this is a week or so old, but its just so ridiculous that after coming across, I had to blog on the whole thing, line for line.

From genius Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol (shame on you, WaPo for publishing this)

"Why Bush Will be a Winner"

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

Yes, let's just forget about all that terrible stuff he did, you know with the complete abuse of power, lies, mismanagement, and that letting one of American's largest cities be destroyed. None of that is relevant at all.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

So, first, the Iraqi government completely failing to meet any goals and going on vacation because its "too hot" is "meaningless." Second, we are now on a "new successful course" which "seems to be working." Accelerating deaths of Americans is "evidence its working?"

Moving one and skipping a bit:

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Really, its gone reasonably well? How about the fact that the Taliban is resurgent, we control only Kabul, we have less idea where Bin Laden is now than we did before the war, or that in 2006, the country accounted for 92% of the world's opium production.

Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaeda -- because al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.

Well, if Bill Kristol assumes something will happen and be successful, then it must be true. I mean, why would have any reason to doubt a totally competent response from the Bush Administration. Oh wait, I forgot that we had already forgotten about all those little things.

As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.

Yes, we are friends with India. It’s just so great that we are sharing nuclear secrets with them.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Well yes, the biggest foreign policy debacle in a generation would in fact be enough to make Bush an unsuccessful president. Of course, that's not the only thing horrible he's done...

Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

FOR THE LAST TIME. AL QAEDA AND SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. Saddam and al-Qaeda hated each. He controls that country. It was entirely terrorist-free. And he had NO WMDS.

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

Again, how have we changed strategy? Is this just a realization that the Iraqis are completely incapable of taking care of themselves? And please, show me the evidence that we are defeating Iran and "routing" al-Qaeda.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

Greater than even the surge proponents expected? Wtf? They must have had some REALLY low expectations. Because my expectation that it would do absolutely nothing has been met perfectly.

But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.

Whatever. I don't recall being apologized to.

But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.

Ah, now we get to his holiness, the sainted Gen. Petraeus. News flash to conservatives: Just because you say "General Petraeus says" instead of Bush says doesn't not make people listen. 65% of America doesn't see why he's so great. We just assume he's another Bush appointee. Bush appointee = "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie" to us. But I don't really blame the General. Its not his fault that his war has no military solution. And P.S. - Grant was a drunken lout.

The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?

Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress-- where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.

That's just insane crazy talk.

And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.

Really? So that's why they but Pelosi and Reid in power in 2006? And yes, many Americans do recoil at that thought. But I'd wager to say its not most Americans. And most is what matters in a democracy.

What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.

I like the odds.

Remind me to gamble with Kristol every chance I get. I like my odds.