“Above all, he kept us safe.” – Statements like this make my skin crawl. This gives a President and the presidency far too much power and credit…

Except: The point happens to be true. And the President deserves credit. Of course, it was our military and CIA people and many others working in the War on Terror that actually kept us safe. But Bush supported them. Bush not only set, but defended policies where they could do their work. Bush insisted that Iraq be an American victory, at a time when Democratic leaders actively wanted to make Iraq an American defeat. All that was to the good, and is to Bush’s credit.

Bush may have put in place policies and structures that have contributed to an increase in public safety, but I think it’s too soon to assess their effectiveness.

On the morning after 9-11, did you expect us to go 7+ years without another terrorist attack in the 50 States? I know I didn’t. And if seven years later is too soon to *begin* assessing his policies’ effectiveness, well, when would be the proper time?

Considering the level of nihilism displayed on 9/11, would Clinton have simply shrugged and continued diddling female flunkies?

Clinton would have done less, yes. Remember, Clinton began his Administration with a 9-11 also, just one where fewer people died: the first WTC attack, in 1993. And terrorist attacks (with American deaths) in 1996, 1998, 2000. The Islamists war on us did not begin on 9-11 and Clinton had done jack squat about it. He famously passed up a clear shot at bin Ladin.

As you point out, Clinton would have seized all the good chances to expand government bureaucracy that 9-11 presented. And I believe that Clinton may well have invaded Iraq, because the Iraq Liberation Act (mandating a policy of regime change) was after all passed on his watch. The attitude of Democrats toward “doing something” about Saddam Hussein was once drastically different. But Clinton would not have seen it through. When Iran and al Qaeda started pouring resources into Iraq in 2005 and 2006, Clinton would have accepted U.S. defeat. Remember, he gave us the disastrous retreat in Somalia, disastrous because it partly inspired the 9-11 terrorists.

Have Bush’s policies been successful enough for me to feel gratitude? No; he’s doing his job.

Which is more than Clinton did.

Bush showed America’s enemies a country that does not retreat in fear, does not bomb with impunity, and most important, does not desert civilians or foreign governments that trust us.

It’s sad that we have “leaders” in this country who demanded that we retreat in fear while deserting civilians and foreign governments that trust us. Not only that, but the slandered and smeared our military along the way. And who could forget their desire to put union interests above national security?

Worse than that, they screamed that they were being “patriotic” all the while.

would Clinton have simply shrugged and continued diddling female flunkies?

Well, we know he did after 2/26, after the SF slaughter in the Mog, the bombings in Kenya & Tanzania, burning down the Branch Davidians, kidnapping a Cuban kid at gunpoint, the USS Cole bombing etc. etc. etc. I think it’s safe to say “yes, he would have”.

And who could forget Algore scuttling his revamp of airport/airline security after a hefty donation to the DNC by the airlines and Mrs. Tom Daschle?

And yes, despite his many flaws, he is a good man. Even his Democratic successor has said as much.

Well, of course Obama is going to say Bush is a good guy. Bush made Obama’s presidency possible. LOL

For if Bush hadn’t been such an abject failure, America would have never taken the chance on a first term Senator – a skinny, black guy named Barack Obama. If things hadn’t been so bad, Democrats would have gone with an establishment choice, like Hillary Clinton or Evan Bayh. (Least you forget, Bayh did run for President for about 2 weeks, until he realized that Obama was sucking up all the oxygen.)

Obama owes a lot to Bush.

They sure have raised the bar on hatred with Bush, but that’s been their stock-in-trade like, forever. Reagan? H.W. Bush? Newt Gingrich? Sarah Palin? And it doesn’t matter how bad anyone on the left is they’ve always gotten a pass, now they are vigorously *defended*.

It’s gotten so bad I’ve withdrawn from discussing anything with “them,” they’ve entirely lost their minds.

It’s only recently that I’ve read some comments from the left acknowledging Reagan as something less than a boob, it’ll take as least as long for Bush’s accomplishments to be ackowledged.

Statements like this make my skin crawl. This gives a President and the presidency far too much power and credit and implies a superhuman, supernatural, Providential aspect reserved for the subjects of regimes who are brainwashed to believe their leaders are god-like. No doubt there are millions who think Kim Jong Il keeps them safe.

Bush may have put in place policies and structures that have contributed to an increase in public safety, but I think it’s too soon to assess their effectiveness. Considering the level of nihilism displayed on 9/11, would Clinton have simply shrugged and continued diddling female flunkies? He may have wanted to use to event to mug for the camera and get our sympathy and burnish his tawdry legacy, but he wouldn’t have been allowed to do anything less than set up the likes of a Homeland Security dept. Hardly visionary, that.

This is one of those ‘Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you’ issues. Have Bush’s policies been successful enough for me to feel gratitude? No; he’s doing his job. Do I think he likely did the best he could with the knowledge he had? I don’t know, but I’m willing to give him part of the benefit of the doubt.

The hatred came first. The left then developed the caricatures to justify it.

Bush was a mediocrity, no doubt about it. But he was not the bumbling-idiot-evil-boogeyman of their fevered imaginings.