When President Bush's approval ratings were above the fifty percent mark, my criticism of President Bush was a lonely hobby--at least among conservatives. Now that Bush's approval ratings have sunk well below forty percent, conservative critics of Bush find the bandwagon crowded. When former Bush sycophant Andrew Sullivan comes out as a critic of the president, it's a sign for me to come to the president's defense.

On a few key issues, President Bush has performed in the "very good" to "excellent" grade:

Taxes
Bush cut them. He didn't raise them. He didn't fall for the Washington trick that deficit reduction can only come by way of tax hikes. Even though taxes were lower under Bush I than Bush II, Bush II has moved tax rates in the right (downward) direction. W has proved more Reagan than Bush on taxes.

Terrorism
Bush reacted swiftly, if deliberatively, to 9/11 by overthrowing the anti-American Taliban regime and installing a government friendly to our interests in its place. He has treated terrorists as terrorists, which has won the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union but the gratitude of the Americans worried about their civil liberties. Since 9/11, there hasn't been a major act of terrorism on U.S. soil. This is not because the terrorists lost interest.

Sovereignty
For President Bush, "unilateralism" isn't a dirty word. He asserted after 9/11 that America didn't need permission to defend itself. He sought allies on Afghanistan and Iraq, but failing to sign them up would not have prevented either action. He balked at the World Court, the Kyoto Protocols, and the Durbin Conference on Racism. He appointed John Bolton, a critic of the UN, to represent America at the UN. Bush understands that America is not in Europe.

Judges
So far so good on Supreme Court Justices Alito and Roberts. Important but overlooked are Bush's conservative nominees to the lower courts, who will populate the federal judiciary for long after George W. Bush returns home for good to Crawford. It's too soon to assess Bush's legacy on judges, but it is quite possible that President Bush will leave a more conservative imprint on the federal bench than President Reagan did.

On government spending, federalism, immigration, Iraq, and scores of other issues, George W. Bush has been a disaster for conservatives. But let's not pretend there's nothing to cheer about.

Not to say that Bush is like the Gipper, but sounds very much like what one could say about Reagan's successes and failures vis-a-vis the conservative movement.

Government spending went up under Reagan, highway funding was used to corral the states into national policy making (making the drinking age 21, etc), immigration (1986 amnesty). Of course Reagan didn't start any long-standing hot wars, he did end the Cold one, but certainly he was portrayed as a cowboy then as Bush is now with Iraq in his prosecution of the struggle against Soviet imperialism/Communism.

So not to say Bush is another Reagan,in so many ways of course, he is not, but I think in the long run, history in general and conservative movement historians in particular, will have more than begrudging respect for Bush's tenure in office on a whole host of issues, not just the ones you've mentioned.

I could be woefully mistaken, of course, but I don't think so.

Eric should be here any moment to refute your every word.

For my part, the judges and taxes go a long way.

I agree, the tax cuts are always a good idea. I also like Roberts so far. He has done some good things, yet he won't veto, won't cut spending. This drives me nuts!! It also may just give the dems back one or both houses.

About the comparison to Reagan: Ken copmares the unconservative things that happened in Reagan's tenure to those happening now. But (esp. given the vary different congressional situations) don't we need to distinguish what happens from what the president pushes for and from what he fights unsuccessfully?

What is it with second term Presidents? Do they all of sudden get stupid or do they just not give a crap? Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, Bush has Miers the UAE port deal and constantly demonstrating that he is a Globalist and big business President.

I do believe that history will look favorably upon GW but it doesn't help us now that we are having to deal with a stubborn Texan who has had his share of fumbles.

Can tax cuts be maintained at the current and projected levels of government spending and the cost of the Iraq War?

No. But there is a simple solution. Get the F out of Iraq!!

Another issue he is not handling very well...Jessica Simpson said NO to a meeting with the pres...

Why would he want to meet with that skank anyway?

'Cause she's got the best top end money can buy?

Nah, that wouldn't be it. With all of the important things going on, why would he give a $hite? Or care what people think about it.

Picked a tough day to be even-handed on Bush Dan.

What with this huge indiscriminate, and consequently immoral air campaign on Iraq and the National Security Strategy declaring anew *based on the supposed threat Iran poses* the doctrine of "preemptive war," I find it hard to say anything good about Bush. How could taxes being cut some be weighed in the balance against innocent people being murdered under the cover of the "war on terror"?

Sure, he is good on the issue of U.S. sovereignty, yet his NSS today makes clear that he absolutely denies the sovereignty of every other nation on the face of the earth. That is a great way to treat the rest of the world's nations, with utter contempt for their right to sovereign existence. It is a contradiction that bodes ill for us, we can expect endless wars for years to come if that is our default attitude.

"What with this huge indiscriminate, and consequently immoral air campaign" -Brian

A huge and indiscriminate air campaign. Support that assertion please.

"Sure, he is good on the issue of U.S. sovereignty, yet his NSS today makes clear that he absolutely denies the sovereignty of every other nation on the face of the earth. That is a great way to treat the rest of the world's nations, with utter contempt for their right to sovereign existence. It is a contradiction that bodes ill for us, we can expect endless wars for years to come if that is our default attitude." -Brian

So, let me get this straight. Iraq and the United States have a conditional cease fire signed with one another, and have since 1991. A condition of this cease fire is that Iraq will live up to it's disarmament obligations. Iraq refuses to do so. As such, the conditions of the cease fire between the United States and Iraq are broken, and hostilities are reopened (the third time hostilities have been reopened since the original cease fire was signed, I might add).

And your conclusion from this is that...The US government is ignoring the sovereignty of every nation on Earth.

I see.

"The best top end money can buy"? WTF does that mean? What is she, a car?

Taxes: what good are tax cuts that are not met with spending cuts. To be selfish, I'm not making much money now, but I hope that I'll be making much more when I'm older. When I'm having to pay for all the debt that Dubya ran up, I won't be praising him

Terrorism: I wasn't terribly opposed to overthrowing the Taliban, but it doesn't seem to have done much good. Treating terrorists like terrorists--does that mean ignoring the constitution, having secret tribunals, etc. Don't be surprised when this is used on Americans.

Sovereignty: While I'm no fan of the UN, wasn't the whole justification of the war to enforce the UN sanctions that Sadaam allegedly broke.

There's a huge difference between wanting to deal peacefully with other nations and protection your own national sovereignity, than going out of your way to alienate the rest of th world for no good reason.

More importantly Sovereignity is a two way street. How would we like it if other countries bombed us, had military bases in our country etc.

Bush's support of sovereignity is limited to him going to war regardless of whether the rest of the world thinks its stupid, not on any principle

Judges-I'll concede he's been pretty good on this, though most of these judges also want to erode civil liberties.

Ben-T,

The U.S. has been "Clintonizing" their mode of attack for awhile now. Of course, our bang-up journalists could care less so we aren't given much detail but this current air raid seems to have killed at least 14 innocent Iraqi civilians so far. That is all I have been able to trace at this point through our media. But the basic point is that the air assaults utilized exclusively against Serbia by Clark and Clinton are becoming a more standard feature of operations in Iraq and they amount to indiscriminate killings. Since you do not recognize that a war can ever be fought unjustly you will of course concede nothing to me here, fine. I am defending natural law, just war theory, divine positive law, and the traditional precepts of war fitting for a civilized nation.

On your other claim you are completely wrong as well and are mouthing the same tired lies the neocons have been preaching for years. The U.S. did not agree to a ceasefire with Iraq that ever gave us the right to restart hostilities with them. Sure, it was a "provisional" ceasefire, but what was the provision Ben? That Saddam dispose of the wmd's he had. Who was to oversee that disposal and confirm it? The UN. Did Saddam fulfill the condition? yes. Even if he didn't who was to judge whether or not the ceasefire conditions had been met. Again the UN, there was absolutely no provision for one of the parties to the ceasefire to stand as the arbiter of Iraqi compliance.

Dude, why do you think Bush sent Powell to the UN to lie so hard? B/c they understood that they had no legal ground (in international law) to stand on at all.

The US denies the sovereignty of all nations that it chooses to deny it to, as indicated by the latest NSS which claims we can attack anyone at any time for any reason. That is an implicit denial of all other nation's sovereignty b/c (I am assuming) we do not think this perogative is open to all nations equally. I could be wrong on that, I know the neocons are completely Hobbesian so maybe Bush really does think global anarchy and violations of sovereignty by whim are just the way the world works.

Tax cuts are always a good thing but are not an indication of one's commitment to conservatism. Bush's tax cuts have not only failed to increase more revenue a la the Laffer Curve but have actually led to the worst revenue performance since the CBO began keeping score.

In fiscal 2000 (nominal) revenues were 2,025.5 billion and in 2004 they were 1,880.3 billion. Again, this is the longest drought of revenue growth since the CBO started keeping score. There have only been two other times when revenues dropped and it was during a recession, and by the following year revenues were at an all time high. So by conventional standards of fiscal conservatism, Clinton is more conservative than Bush. Why give Bush credit for being more liberal than Clinton? History (Leftists) might judge Bush better than Clinton because Bush turned the Republican Party into a pro-government party, but that's no reason for conservatives to celebrate.

I can't give Bush credit for fighting terrorism or for making our nation more secure because he continues to leave our borders open and has spent much more time fighting the secular dictatorship of Saddam than any real terrorist.

"Since 9/11, there hasn't been a major act of terrorism on U.S. soil."

This is true, but why cite this as evidence of Bush's success in the War on Terror? It's an example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Citing an elementary logical fallacy as evidence of waging a successful war on terror is pretty stupid.

Sovereignty isn't good for the sake of sovereignty but only when it exists to protect our national interests from enroaching international standards and demands -- like abortion, feminism, immigrant rights etc. Declaring our "sovereignty" and then attacking Iraq over a stockpiles of lies, deceptions, and untruths gives sovereignty a bad name. What if Bush were to declare the U.S. "sovereign" and then use it as an excuse to kidnap children, and sell them into child prostitution -- international law be damned! Immoral actions -- kidnapping, wars -- do not give any cause a good name.

Ben,

Iraq and the United States never had a cease fire treaty. It was a United Nations cease fire trety. Besides Saddam did disarm -- no WMD -- and did allow weapon inspectors into Iraq as UNSCR 1441 demanded.

"The U.S. has been "Clintonizing" their mode of attack for awhile now. Of course, our bang-up journalists could care less so we aren't given much detail but this current air raid seems to have killed at least 14 innocent Iraqi civilians so far. That is all I have been able to trace at this point through our media. But the basic point is that the air assaults utilized exclusively against Serbia by Clark and Clinton are becoming a more standard feature of operations in Iraq and they amount to indiscriminate killings. Since you do not recognize that a war can ever be fought unjustly you will of course concede nothing to me here, fine. I am defending natural law, just war theory, divine positive law, and the traditional precepts of war fitting for a civilized nation."-Brian

I do not recognize a war can ever be fought unjustly, yes. (read: I support the Iraq War, which Brian has not yet personally approved.)

"On your other claim you are completely wrong as well and are mouthing the same tired lies the neocons have been preaching for years. The U.S. did not agree to a ceasefire with Iraq that ever gave us the right to restart hostilities with them. Sure, it was a "provisional" ceasefire, but what was the provision Ben? That Saddam dispose of the wmd's he had. Who was to oversee that disposal and confirm it? The UN. Did Saddam fulfill the condition? yes." -Brian

The issue is not whether you feel what Saddam had constituted a casus belli, it is whether Saddam was in breach of his disarmament obligations.

Which, as you can see, he was: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

"Dude, why do you think Bush sent Powell to the UN to lie so hard? B/c they understood that they had no legal ground (in international law) to stand on at all." -Brian

Sadly, the new documents that are currently in the process of being released, which constitute about 2/3rds of documents we actually captured, do not seem to support your view.

And General Sada, the man who was the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force, has been nice enough to inform us that WMDs were transported into Syria by Special Republican Guard units before the war. His charges are substantiated by Moshe Yaalon, who was Israel's top General during the war.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

"The US denies the sovereignty of all nations that it chooses to deny it to, as indicated by the latest NSS which claims we can attack anyone at any time for any reason. That is an implicit denial of all other nation's sovereignty b/c (I am assuming) we do not think this perogative is open to all nations equally. I could be wrong on that, I know the neocons are completely Hobbesian so maybe Bush really does think global anarchy and violations of sovereignty by whim are just the way the world works." -Brian

Global anarchy is the way the world works. That's not neocon, that's realist. Look up "International Anarchy" and "The Security Dilemma" if you have ever taken a 101 course in International Relations, you've heard of them.

P.S:

The far left-esque paranoia about neocons on this blog is actually very amusing. The only real neocons in the Bush administration were Perle and Wolofowitz, both second tier policy makers. The rest are either classical realists or neorealists.

Neocons want to spread democracy by any means necessary, not engage in imperial oil grabs, they are far too idealistic for that.

The Iraq War happened because both the realists, and the neocons supported it, though for different reasons.

For the neocons, it was an appealing chance to spread democracy in the heart of the Middle East. This, which has made the more appealing of the two rhetorics, at least for explaining the war to the public, has been on the surface.

The realists supported the war as a much more routine power play in the Middle East. With the Saudis refusing to put the foot down on Al Qaeda, and even going so far as to ask us to remove our bases, and the threat of Iran quietly growing, the US needed a large regional base that could provide two things: A strong enough military to keep Iran from becoming the major regional power, and the threat of a new oil power in the region to scare the Saudis.

So far, the objectives have been generally achieved. The Saudis, upon seeing the invasion of Iraq, had the sudden urge to open what was, for all intents and purposes, a civil war in their country against Al Qaeda and it's supporters. Today, Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia is largely dead.

As for Iran, it is surrounded on all sides by US military might, and its nuclear facilities should be getting bombed anytime now, either by us or the Israeli air force, out of their hidden bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Being younger, I originally preferred the idealistic global posturing of the neocons, but I have come to recognize that the realists are much more wise in running both foreign policy in general and establishing accomplishable goals for Iraq.

Ben,

General Sada's account of weapons being sent to Syria remains unverified. As I've always said to anyone who wants to believe in the weapons to Syria conspiracy theory: identify the names and/or locations of the chemical and biological weapon facilities Iraq was using to create WMD in 2002.

So far, no takers.

"Ben,

General Sada's account of weapons being sent to Syria remains unverified. As I've always said to anyone who wants to believe in the weapons to Syria conspiracy theory: identify the names and/or locations of the chemical and biological weapon facilities Iraq was using to create WMD in 2002.

So far, no takers." -Eric

So far, yes. I really don't care whether they had them, to tell the truth.

The Bush administration believed Iraq had them, to be sure. The whole point of the WMD explanation in the first place was that it was an argument to invade Iraq that was both plausible and true.

Obviously WMDs, there or not, were not the casus belli in Iraq, because we do not treat other nations the way we treated Iraq.

The only issue I am concerned with establishing was whether Iraq was in breach of it's disarmament obligations, which it is fairly inarguable that it was.