perfidy

Shhhhh. I'm trying to get the gumbint to pay me to work where I'm comfy, too. Like home.

I nominally support Bush, but I agree that this looks bad.

Even if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job, which it might not, it has the APPEARANCE of affecting his ability to do his job. Even if only for the sake of appearing to work overtime for voters, why doesn't he spend less time on the ranch?

While I totally despise the Alfred E. Neuman we have as president, he's hosted a number of foreign heads of state at Crawford, like Putin and Fox. I think you might be exaggerating slightly. He may be out of the White House, but that doesn't always mean he's doing nothing (like falling off Segways).

I have to admit, the man sounds like a crumb bum when it comes to taking vacation time. I mean, he gets to write off all his plane expenses because the tax payer picks up the tab. I get a lousy 3 weeks of personal time and 6 corporate holidays a year (No holidays from New Year's Day to Memorial Day). That Bush takes all this time off, even if half of the days are working holidays, that still seems like an extraordinary amount of time spent in leisure.

Aside from any differences I might have with Ross about court-ordered presidencies and an alleged lack of effective decisions by Bush, I've got to ask:

Is there anyone out there who actually believes the President ever has a day off?

I don't. And it's got nothing to do with whatever retreat he's hanging out at, including the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

There's no doubt that the President is always working. I'm not arguing that at all. But the appearance of spending so much time on his ranch won't do much to help him. Even if most of the ranch time was spent in Camp David instead, he'd APPEAR to be working more and be more available in the event of an emergency.

It's all about perception, and I think many people perceive he's spending too much time at his ranch.

I concur. In general, Bush comes of as an unserious person, which is not a reassuring quality in a President. While I realize that gravitas has little bearing on a President's actual effectiveness or work habits, I'd feel better if there were fewer shots of him sitting in a golf cart in Texas and grinning like a shithead.

I have no doubt in my mind that every day is a work day. But going back to the ranch in Texas looks an awful lot like he's going to ground, and does nothing to reassure me that he's taking my well -being (or the nation's) seriously enough.

It's actually a problem I have with Reagan too. Marty Feldstein, the eminent economist, likes to say that the details don't matter for people like the President (or himself....). What does is taking bold and original policy positions and working from the ground up to make them happen, damn the conventional wisdom. There's something to that. But the other side of the coin is that if you just stick to the grand scheme, there's a lot of details that can screw you in the end. When you're President, those details are life and death matters. I get the impression that Bush gets the first half of the lesson, but has yet to grok the latter.

I understand both of the previous comments, and don't generally disagree. The appearance of seriousness might be more important than the existence of seriousness.

Your impression, Johno, and Murdoc's, and Ross's, is that he's not serious (or not serious enough) and that presents a problem for him. My opinion of his seriousness (perhaps more favorable than yours) doesn't cancel out the concern he should have about yours.

As if he personally gave a crap, or could, about any of our individual opinions, that is.

"As if he personally gave a crap, or could, about any of our individual opinions, that is."

Patton, to be sure. I do have to admit that I can't remember a time in my life when I felt like the President was a man worthy of the office. Being that I was born two days before the resignation of Nixon, I can't really speak for Dick, Gerry, or Jimmy. But Reagan seemed oddly remote and sometimes out of touch, Bush I was a terrible communicator (runs in the family?), and Clinton... let's just forget about Clinton. He could talk a Nun into bondage. Perhaps part of my trouble is I've drunk the Kool-ade and believe that there are people who are the equal of the office.

But even so, part of the President's job is to keep the country feeling like someone's on top of matters, and Bush just isn't good at that job. Not to spin DUnderground crazytalk here, but is it possible that Cheney's the real power?

Valid question, John, but I don't think so. I don't believe the stories about Bush just being a dummy, and as a result, I don't believe that Cheney, or anyone else, needs to prop him up.

I've met him, seen him speak in person, and had discussions about him with my neighbor, an agent who's been on his detail. These things provide me with enough information to compare the way he delivers talking points to the way he talks. The two are quite different. He frankly sucks at speeches, though he sucks less now than ever before.

He's never given the impression of being an "imperialistic president", but there's a part of his approach to effective government that is quite different from that of his predecessors, and it revolves around the way he and his administration keep everyone outside the Executive Branch apprised of their actions and plans.

I'd direct you to the article at The">http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2553350]The Economist from the April 1 edition, entitled "A matter of trust". I won't bore you with its full contents here, but if you're interested and can't get to the article, email me directly and I'll share its contents with you.

The article's main thrust is to discuss Bush's credibility. (It also has an excellent cartoon rendition of the problem and the first use I've seen of the "Pinnochiometer".) But, as part of the resolution of the questions it poses, it describes how his approach is different, and why this approach might not be a wholly bad thing.

Read it if you get a couple minutes you're irked at. And even if you can't read it, take a gander at the">http://www.economist.com/images/20040403/D1404SA1.jpg]the cartoon.

I'd like to clear up one thing: I'm solidly behind President Bush and most of what he's doing. I fully support our presence in Iraq, for instance, and I will almost certainly vote for him in November. I do not AT ALL mean to suggest that I think he's not serious about his job.

That being said, I can see why many might question his work ethic. I do not, but I'm not in the category of "undecideds" that he needs to win over.

This argument is really about appearances, which makes it a little insignificant, but it's common knowledge that the opposition will be all over your every little move, so why give them free ammunition?

That's what I'm getting at, not that he's actually shirking his duties.

Ross, you lose a lot of credibility when you say something stupid like "court-awarded victory". You don't have to like reality, but you should live in it.

Two things come to mind though about this particular post. First off was Jimmy Carter, who sat in the White House until the Iran hostages were released. It was a powerful idea, meant to put across the idea that he was on the job. Which it did, until it dragged on and on and became painfully obvious that there wasn't a whole lot he could do (or was willing to do).

Secondly I thought about Presidents before modern travel and communication. Back in the days when campaigning was done via railroad, or visiting other countries meant ocean voyages, the President might not have been out of touch, but they certainly weren't instantly accessable. Today's Presidents are available 24/7, regardless of where they are.

Like a lot of things, it comes down to perception instead of reality, and both sides see what they want to see. I think way too much is being made of this.

Regarding today's Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn, Bush is still at his ranch in TX. So instead of inspiring our kids, he's on holiday some more. Last year, it was invitation only for military children, a constituency he wanted to court as he sent their parents to war. This sends a really bad message to me that he doesn't care about the rest of kids this year. NICE. REALLY NICE MR. PRESIDENT. You're coming off like an insensitive asshole now. I'm sure this is just me getting all wound up over nothing again, but it looks really crappy to me.

No offense, Mapgirl, but yes, it's you getting all wound up over nothing. It was a friggin' easter egg roll, for crying out loud. :)

And, as the father of a 9-year old who just this year found out that her mom is the Easter Bunny, I'm thinking that any inspiration from an Easter Egg roll would be purely temporary.

Ted, when a right-wing Supreme Court steps in and _overturns_ a State Court decision, it becomes somewhat difficult to view it any other way.

Looking back, we know that vote counts have shown that it is relatively unlikely that Gore would have won even if the recounts had proceeded. At the time, though, we knew no such thing. The SC stepped in and, in a strict party-line vote, ended the process. Thus, court-awarded victory. What leads you to believe that this is a reality I don't live in? I live in it every day. Oh, I get it -- you'd like me (and maybe others) to stop _talking_ about it, and start pretending that there is full force and legitimacy to Bush's presidency. I don't think there is.

There's a difference between 'sitting in the White House" and not doing a damn thing. In eight years, Clinton took about 150 days of vacation. Three years into his presidency, Bush has taken over 500. Working vacation, my ass. What evidence is there of any "work" taking place? There sure wasn't much evidence of it in August of 2001, when Bush took the longest vacation of any president in 32 years. Do you believe that Bush's prolonged absences from the Oval Office had no effect on 9/11?

It is highly convenient for the Bush/GOP axis to claim that things come down to "perception vs. reality". There are times when honest people CAN'T disagree and stay honest. "Court-awarded" victory? Yeah, we could honestly disagree on that.

I like to look for things that can be measured, or predicted. When a prediction has been made, we can pretty easily measure the result. The war in Iraq didn't start yesterday.

Ross,
If you're getting to a place where you can tie Bush being away from the White House in August 2001 to the 9-11 attacks, it might be time to give that tinfoil hat a rest!

LOL Ross, you admit that Bush won the election by every recount done (including the NY Times), yet you still claim his presidency is illegitemate? We'll have to agree to disagree, because you're arguing moot points.

Actually, I started answering you point by point, but as I went along and saw the rest of your comment, you're just coming across as a whackjob when it comes to Bush. I'm guessing that's just your hot-button, so I'll end it here.

It amazes me that people DON'T see that Bush's prolonged absence is at least a _factor_ in 9/11. How do I get to this point? Like this:

If Bush's absence from the White House for an entire MONTH prior to 9/11, when there was significant traffic/chatter about terrorism, made NO DIFFERENCE to the outcome, then what does that say about his leadership?

Either his presence simply has no effect on the decision-making processes of ths exectuvive branch, or the White House doesn't want to talk about the fact that his "strong leadership", had it been applied prior to 9/11, might have made a difference.

Which way do you see it? If he's as good a leader as the GOP would like us to believe, his _active presence_ could/should have altered the probabilities of 9/11. Note that I do NOT say it could have prevented it. But perhaps, if the President had not taken his much-vaunted "leadership" on vacation, more dots might have been connected.

Unless you don't think this President is a dot-connector.

Ross,
But what precisely would the Prez have done? It's not up to the Executive to connect dots- there are a bazillion functionaries to do it for him.

Now, unless there was a piece of credible, verifiable message traffic that said that hijackers were going to hijack 4 planes on the morning of Sep 11 and fly them into the Pentagon, the Trade Towers, et al, what could Bush have done?

Ross, even if you buy Clarke's assertions - the commission asked him if, by adopting everything that he suggested, 9/11 could have been prevented. He answered no. And the Bush administration did increase resources compared to the Clinton years.

It's easy to close the door after the horses are stolen. But the fact that Bush was at Crawford had little to do with the motivations and actions of 19 crazy people. The president is not the one in the trenches connecting the dots. There is evidence that more dots should have been connected, especially in light of the fact that the CIA and FBI were barely on speaking terms.

Roosevelt got sideswiped by Pearl Harbor. Yet we remember his leadership during WWII. The same thing applies here. Since we were attacked (the moral responsibility for which lies solely, completely with terrorists) Bush's leadership has led us to victory in two campaigns, disrupted the terrorist network responsible for the attack, and (hopefully) made us safer.

"There's a difference between 'sitting in the White House" and not doing a damn thing. "

Yes, that's true. Clinton did not do a damn thing in response to: the first attack on the WTC, the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings. Bush's response has been a little more, shall we say, vigorous.

And remember Ross, the SC decision stopped the FSC from changing the rules mid game.

Ted, I'd encourage you to point out specifically where I'm wrong, and even think about backing it up with facts.

When I say that recounts might not have changed the result, I mean precisely that. I could also say that a GOP voting commissioner and her chief attorney in the state of Florida decided that, in order to "prevent felons from voting", the parameters on compiling lists of felons would be relaxed. They decided that as long as a name was "close" to a felon's name, they would put that name on the list, and leave it to local supervisors to decide whether or not the name should be on the list.

Of the 4,847 people who appealed their placement on the "felon list", 2,430 were judged not to be convicted felons. And that is only the people who challenged their "felon status". This was a fairly direct attack on black participation in the vote. Maybe it's just hardball politics to you. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Do the math.

* * *
By March 1999, four months after contracts had been signed, DBT officials already had doubts about the state's ground rules. According to testimony by ChoicePoint/DBT vice president George Bruder, a person could be included on the list if his or her name, date of birth and/or Social Security number closely approximated that of a known felon. In other words, in a state with 16 million people, where many individuals share approximate names and also dates of birth, exact matches were not necessary.

In March of 1999, Thorogood expressed her doubts about those guidelines in an e-mail to Mitchell: "Unfortunately, programming in this fashion may supply you with false positives," she said, referring to names of people who did not belong on the felons list. "This seems to be the approach you would prefer to choose, rather than miss any positive true matches." Mitchell made the state's position clear in his answer to Thorogood on March 23: "Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren't matches and let the supervisors [of elections] make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether," Mitchell wrote. In other words, the lists were designed to include people who were not felons, some of whom eventually fell through the cracks and were unfairly purged.

When supervisors began to complain about errors, Bruder said his company told the Divison of Elections that they were caused by the loose parameters set by the search, but Mitchell ordered no substantial change in the parameters despite recommendations by DBT. "After submitting them they were not acted on by the state," said James Lee, a spokesman for ChoicePoint/DBT. In fact, the next year, as the presidential election approached, the state asked that the parameters be loosened, according to Lee. Instead of 90 percent of the letters in the name of a person on the purge list having to match with those of someone on the voting rolls, the standard was loosened to 80 percent. Although such matches were often eliminated when Social Security numbers or other data were also checked, such information was not always available, and more innocent individuals were included on the felons list.

The state officials were not content to include only former Florida prisoners. They also asked DBT to use its national databases to provide the names of felons from other states who might have moved to Florida and registered. But some of those came from the thirty-six states that have automatic restoration of civil rights, including the right to vote. More than 2,000 such individuals were included on the state's purge lists. Following press and public attention to the situation after the election, the state quietly changed its policy [see Gregory Palast, "Florida's 'Disappeared Voters,'" February 5].

* * *

The lists targeted black voters in extremely disproportionate numbers. In Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, where only 15 percent of voters are black, 54 percent of the names on the purge list were African-Americans. In Miami-Dade, where blacks make up 20 percent of the population, a list of 5,762 people contained the names of 3,794 blacks, or 66 percent. In Leon County, which includes Tallahassee, the state capital, 29 percent of the people are black, but 55 percent of the purge list names were African-Americans.

In one Leon County case, the Rev. Willie David Whiting, a black pastor from Tallahassee, arrived at his polling place to find himself listed as a convicted felon; he was refused the right to vote despite never having spent a day in jail. He says he had never received notification of his disfranchisement. It turned out that he had been confused with a Willie J. Whiting, whose birthdate was two days away from his own, and was considered a match due to a "derived" or approximate name and birthdate. "I felt like I was slingshotted back into slavery," Whiting testified to the civil rights panel. He said he was forced to consider possible motives. "Does someone have a formula for stealing this election?" he says he asked himself.

According to Clarke's book, Clinton authorized a 75-cruise missile attack in 1998. The vast majority of those were sent into Afghanistan, and did a pretty good job of tearing up the terrorist training camps there.

If the CIA and FBI are not on "speaking terms", exactly which part of that is not an executive leadership problem? It's certainly not the kind you can solve on vacation in Texas.

Which victorious campaigns are you talking about? The two that we're still in?

Would you describe the current uprising in Iraq as "militarily significant"?

Military engagement in Afghanistan did disrupt the terrorist network. I doubt much we've done since has. Clarke says (and I've been saying for a long time) that Iraq occupation has been a miracle for terrorist recruitment. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Then of course, you have the thousands of military ballots - overwhelmingly republican - that were systematically disallowed by democratic election boards across the state. And let's not forget the democratic election fraud in Missouri.

Nevertheless, the point is that you start an election with a set of rules, you have to finish with it. Changing the rules when the result is not to your likeing to get a different result is arbitrary, and counter to the principle of rule of law.

In all the recounts, both in the three before and all the media sponsored ones after the SC ruling, Bush won. Whether it's by 537 or 6 million, he won. Game over. Do your best next time. That does not make his victory illegitimate, it just makes it a close one.

No one that I am aware of, and I hope you're not going to be the first, has ever claimed that Clinton's cruise missile strike was militarily or in any other way effective.

I exagerated a bit on the speaking terms comment. For very good and sensible reasons, the CIA and the FBI were set up with exclusive domains over different security areas. The FBI is in charge of domestic and counter-intelligence. The CIA is in charge of foriegn intelligence. This is, by and large a good thing. But it is in the nature of bureaucracies to defend their turf, and the two agencies have historically (half century or so, since the creation of the OSS - predecessor of the CIA) butted heads wherever their jurisdictions overlapped. Naturally, foriegn groups plotting attacks on American soil would be one of those. When the two agencies did communicate, it was through overly formal channels, which as I understand it is being changed. Also, you have general compartmentalization of intelligence creating a problem with dissemination of intelligence. "Need to know" is a double edged sword.

Yes. Campaign, war - these are different things. We won two campaigns, we are still in the war. We're still in Germany and Japan for chissakes, do you think we should have left Iraq already?

Yes, though it's only a week old, and we don't really know what the result will be. Aside from victory for us, I mean. How exactly it will play out is still to be seen. It is on the lower edge of militarily significant though. There was no chance that they could do significant damage to US forces.

We have continued, even while invading Iraq, to disrupt the terror networks. This is because the invasion and that work do not involve the same people. Admittedly, much of that was done early on in Afghanistan. Now we are working on the harder to get to, non centralized part.

This is perhaps true. But a miracle for who? All of these terrorists come to Iraq, and attack our troops in prepared positions rather than assaulting US civilians on US soil. The Jihadis are dying in droves over there, to which I can only say, "good."

Not only did Roosevelt get sideswiped by Pearl Harbor, it was *even after* credible, solid intelligence that pointed to a Japanese attack on US interests in the Pacific. All other considerations aside (most of which are actually far more important than this one bit here), Roosevelt fell down like someone'd tipped over his chair. By comparison, Bush doesn't come out too bad.

Ross:

Dick Clarke is a pusillanimous puke, and a man who's simply selling books. Very little that he says resonates with me, but his claim about US action increasing the speed (if not the ease) with which terrorists recruit seems plausible.

And I'm OK with that - I hope they quickly send them all to Iraq, to be mowed down by the military coalition.

Disaffected losers tend to do disaffected loser things, and terrorists are no different. And because they're losers, it's tempting to always blame the US for their losership (loserness?).

Try to avoid that, if you can.

And since it's Bush with whom you disagree, I know you can't avoid blaming the US.

Consider at least trying not to pretend that any of your chosen alternatives to Bush would have simply allowed the terrorists to have their way. Notwithstanding their claims that they'd have all done it in some meaningfully different manner, had that happened, they'd have been impeached for incompetence.

Buckethead: Are you saying that Clinton should not have fired 75 cruise missiles at terrorist training camp sites in Afghanistan in 1998?

Patton: Clarke's book as a whole is a dry recitation of the day-to-day facts of fighting terrorism at the top levels of the government. Do you care to be more specific about what he's "said" that you don't believe?

The notion that any President, post-9/11, would not have struck Afghanistan is simply ridiculous. Would Gore or Kerry have invaded Iraq? I doubt it, but I really don't know. Using a phrase like "trying not to pretend" implies a certain level of omniscience on your part that your writings so far simply do not support.

I suggest that you try to avoid arguments of the following form: I disagree with X. Since X is obviously motivated by politics, I don't need to respond to X's points. In any case, Gore would have screwed it up even worse.

No, he should have done a lot more.

Your current President disagrees. He took office and did nothing.

He did step up funding for covert actions, and a few other things. This wasn't enough. However, I was one of a very few who, before 9/11, thought that military action was called for in response to terrorist acts. For the president, absent something like 9/11, to commit to a wide ranging strategy of preemption and military action was unthinkable - for either political party. That's why I think the commission - as it has turned out - is a farce. They are grandstanding rather than actually identifying areas for improvementr doing somethingl like a military style lessons learned analysis. The effort to blame Bush for 9/11 happening is ridiculous. There was not clear cut evidence of any specific plan. (Vague rumors of ill intent do not count - as Johno pointed out, FDR had far greater indication for Pearl Harbor and "did nothing." Its hard to decide which piece of unsubstantiated intelligence is the significant one.) Anything that is not identifying problems with how the intelligence services interact and process intelligence is really a waste of time.

Bush is not at fault for 9/11 - he was barely in office. A bit more, but still not a lot, of responsibility can be laid at the feet of Clinton, for reinforcing the Arab perception of American weakness that encouraged Al Qaida. But the blame is clearly and solely on bin Laden and his crew of bloody, suicidal minions. This should be obvious.

We can argue about the relative effectiveness of different plans for Iraq, but again, the invasion worked, so arguing about how many troops were necessary for invasion is moot. What we need to argue about now is: do we have enough troops; are they employing optimal strategies, if not, what are those strategies; are they properly supplied; how much can we afford to spend (somewhere north of a lot); and so on. Carping on what has been, by and large and in comparison to historical analogs an incredibly successful and bloodless invasion and occupation is senseless.

Ross: If "X" in your comment above is "Ross", then I'd certainly not try to blow a response by you with bluster; it's not my style, and I'm sure it wouldn't work even if it was.

If I don't respond specifically to one of your points, you can assume that either I agree with you or that I find it uninteresting. That's what I assume when I read your responses to me and others, and it suits the tenor of a lively discussion rather nicely, I think.

If "X" is Richard Clarke, then sadly he's not here to speak for himself.

As to a clarification of why Clarke has a credibility problem, I've not read his book and have no plans to do so. I've heard that it's partly a dry recitation, but that it also attempts to be an "I was there! And I can quote the profanity verbatim!" tell-all.

Dr. Rice doesn't dispute the general content of the book, nor does the Administration, and neither do I. What I take issue with is his laughable assertions in interviews (which assertions may or may not be in the book) that he was the only one at NSC who had any brains or hint of a clue, and that if only he'd been listened to (...).

Specifically, claiming that Rice looked blankly at him when he mentioned Al Qaeda, as though she had no clue who they were, was a real Dick Clarke credibility crusher for me.

He suffers from the same problem that, say, Ann Coulter does: Too much vehemence, theatrics, and arm-waving makes it easy for me to ignore the perhaps-90% of what they say that isn't overtly stupid and might actually be the God's-honest truth.

Regarding the comment:

The notion that any President, post-9/11, would not have struck Afghanistan is simply ridiculous. Would Gore or Kerry have invaded Iraq? I doubt it, but I really don't know. Using a phrase like "trying not to pretend" implies a certain level of omniscience on your part that your writings so far simply do not support.

several things occur to me. First, if your points related to the situation in Iraq all presume that nobody could have done it well, then say that. If you think everyone but Bush could have done it better, say that. If you're not going to do either, I'm forced to presume you're pretending an alternate result without having the balls to actually claim it, and that's not omniscience, it's observation. Part of that observation has been rendered inoperative by your claim that Gore would have screwed it up worse.

You might be right on that, but I wouldn't claim it of certainty, because (ahem) I'm not omniscient. In fact, I believe that Gore could have risen to the occasion, and the primary difference is that he'd have gotten a lot less shit from the other side of the aisle than Bush has gotten. For those things that do trouble you about the current US President, it's always more instructive to read a complaint and an alternative, rather than just the complaint.

I suggest that you try to avoid meta-arguments of the following form: "Bush stole the election, therefore everything he does is inept" because when that sort of construct is used on someone who believes otherwise on the predicate, everything after the "therefore" sounds like static.

I have read Clarke's book. I found it interesting, providing an insider's view of the high-level government process of attacking terrorism.

Reading opinions that Clarke's book is about Bush's lack of interest in terrorism prior to 9/11 is irritating to me. Bush wasn't interested in terrorism, particulary, but it's not the point of the book. Plenty of folks on the right would like the public to believe that's the main thrust of the book.

Clarke's entire point is this: The war in Iraq is a pointless waste of resources that could have been put to much better use attacking terrorism. Bush's Administration talks big on terror, but in Clarke's opinion, isn't really doing all that much about it.

It's very convenient for the right to claim that Clarke is asserting that he is asserting special, unique knowledge about terrorism. The book claims nothing of the sort. There are dozens of names mentioned, effective people who knew their areas, knew what needed to be done. Rice gets a fair amount of praise in the book; Clarke respects her abilities in certain areas.

It stuns me that you can write in one sentence that the general content of the book is not disputed, and then say that Clarke's description (opinion) of Rice's expression during a conversation is some kind of "credibility crusher". How does that one assertion outweigh everything else?

You don't want to believe that what Clarke is saying is true. You'd rather believe that if you can find one thing wrong with it, it's not worth your time.

Equating Coulter and Clarke is truly ridiculous. One is a public servant who is one of the world's foremost experts on terrorism, the man who _ran the situation_ on 9/11, who has spent 30 years of his life in public service. The other is a rabid attack dog whose attractive exterior gains her an audience her she has done nothing to deserve.

On Iraq: We shouldn't be there. The reason we are there is the artful dodging of the truth by the Administration, who gravely implied that they were in possession of secret knowledge. Iraq was directly connected to terror primarily as political cover for the war. Bush gambled. He lacked direct evidence that WMD existed, but figured that there was a decent probability it would be found. I am sure he's really pissed off at his senior staff right now for misleading himj on this point.

I do presume that nobody could have done Iraq well. The use of pure military power to force social change doesn't have a particularly good record. What made Bush think that his particular effort would succeed, where so many others have failed? Was it the brilliant diplomacy that would accompany it? Was it the meticulous planning and estimation? Was it the shining, undeniable superiority of western culture? Presidents need to think about these kinds of things. As far as I can tell, this one didn't get much past "Rumsfeld tells me it can be done".