George W Bush

[Jake]

Neutral at best.

And it's a sad commentary on our country's politics that he is preferrable to most others, and certainly the fools from both sides who have run Congress during his terms. What I approve of about Bush is that he is committed, however stubbornly, to achieving something for what we've invested in Bush. Some may say he's pumping money into a dead deal, but I still see success as a possibility. Maybe not a liberal democracy without any violence or hostility what so ever, but there's definitely still a chance Iraq emerges with a functioning government coalition, an armed forces that can keep the threat of militants low, and which is a regional ally of the United States on the level of a Kuwait. Those who disagree just cannot appreciate what will happen when the US removes itself from the Iraq situation. If you say it's an unstabilized mess now, what is it once you remove the only thing keeping it from completely imploding on itself?

My disagreements with Bush are mainly on his No Child Left Behind schtick, which is clearly a failure as presented, his trusting of his friends and associates when they're in over their heads, and how he's selling this War on Terrorism. Presenting it as a moral crusade was foolish from the start. He should've laid out exactly what we wanted from the beginning; (1) regional allies against Iran, (2) the stiffling of revolutionary Islam, and (3) economic control over the region. I think those are more realistic goals than the eradication of global terrorism.

All he can do now to rehabilitate himself is to continue the fight the Democrats in Congress. His Presidency is a lost cause right now, but he is certainly still useful. Having him veto every bill he disagrees with that does not have veto proof majorities would go a long way towards stopping the crap Pelosi and Co. are pushing.