Gelertner (the author of the piece) is an interesting character - a world-class computer scientist, and an individual who became outspoken in those conservative beliefs he had after he had been maimed by a mail bomb from that *sshole “Unibomber”. I have tremedous respect for him and his opinions.
Bush will be like Truman - flawed in a lot of things, but hard as nails where it counted. I wish W had held the line on spending, and I certainly wish he had been able to use the presidential pulpit to justify his controversial foreign policy initiatives. But even if he’d been more articulate, I suspect 8 years of MSM sniping would’ve worn him down anyway.
What is especially admirable about Bush is that he (outwardly at least) didn’t give a sh*t about what the press said about him or what the opinion polls looked like - he did what he thought was right, and the hell with the consequences on his popularity. The anti-Clinton if there ever was one.
If Obama doesn’t f-up Iraq, then I think Bush’s greatness will depend on the ability of future administrations to exploit our foot-in-the-door there. Remember, Iran is really the bad actor in that neighborhood, and if we pull off Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ll have those clowns crowded on two borders.
If we survive 4 years of the chosen one.
And that was always the point.
Divide the NE with freedom from Turkey to the sea and fence in Iran and Syria
Just my opinion, but I've thought all along that Iraq's location between Iran and their Syrian shower-buddies and hard athwart Iran's supply-line to Hezbollah in Lebanon, was one of the principal attractions, for the Neo-cons, of going after Saddam.
Bush himself may have had other reasons -- as Oliver Stone wants us to believe.