Bush vows to keep doing the wrong thing until...it..is the right thing

With the emergence of that latest bi-partisan intelligence report that cites the war in Iraq as the "cause celebre" for Jihadists along with such observations as "anti-US and anti-globalization is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies" and many other, well if you've been reading my blogs, predictable assessments (you can read what has been declassified here www.registerguard.com/intelbrief), Bush has come out to say that he will continue to fight until he wins. Let's review: The war is causing more terrorists, breeding a wider range of anti-US sentiment, making it, according to the report, more likely that terrorism will hit the homeland and Bush's response is to do more of the same. It reminds me of the saying an old friend of mine used (don't know if he made it up but it sounded like one of those clever cliches of old) when he was frustrated by the company he was working for: "you can't lose a penny on the dollar and make it up in volume." Well, George, your digging through a pile of horse manure that is now up to your neck and your still saying, "there's gotta be a pony in here somewhere!"

One of the things the report did say, that falls closer in line with the earlier post of mine, "Ok Mr. Smarty pants, what do we do, then?" is that since the majority of muslims are peaceful and do not support the violent measures of the Jihadists, then the best possiblity of weakening extremism is through the lack of support from the larger muslim community (in other words muslims need to solve muslim problems). The reason I feel this relates to the above-mentioned post is that the report also suggests that by angering the muslims that should be on the side of anti-terrorism through our meddling tactics we are preventing this from happening. The report reads: "Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the Jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "Jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most muslims-- all of which Jihadists exploit."

So, George, Lord knows that you, of all people, need an "intelligence committee" so why oh why discard their report? But who am I to make such hard judgements on our commander and chief? Don't take my word for it. How about you take the word of this guy and his 415 friends: excerpt from an article by Princeton University History Professor Sean Wilentz: "Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst(president)ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant."

You can view the entire article about why he thinks George W. Bush is a good candidate for the worst president in American history at www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

It's actually quite entertaining reading while at the same time very cautious in its assessment. well, there's my rant for today. I guess it's Tom's war rant day. Gotta pick up the thread sometime. I'd love to hear from a Bush supporter who can give a concise and intelligent comment on how Bush is a good president and how his policies are working. "Is anybody out there?" Peace, Tom