So you're now a liberal communist? I guess tomorrow you'll wake up gay also?

Wow. Do people actually understand what they read?

I’ve had my own confrontations with the ultraconservatives when I’ve dissented even partly from the uncompromising positions of the National Rifle Association. Also, my advocacy for decriminalizing mind altering drugs has resulted in suspicions that I might be a regular marihuana smoker. It is most fortunate that these right-wing crazies are the exception, and not the norm.

The 21 year old USAF member is wrong about our host allegedly focussing more on the bad than the good. Still, he’s right to to give President Bush credit for the effectiveness of his overall policies---while conceding that they might need to be improved. A rational Bush supporter should never think the President is above just criticisms.

You know, I've been reading this site for a while now and if I was asked to summarize Professor Drezner's politics words like Communist, ultra-liberal, appeaser and angry left would not be the ones which would instantly spring to mind.

I did like the last one though.

Gee, and I get annoyed when I'm in some semi-public forum and people insist on trying to angrily pigeon-hole me as soon as they find out either my profession (Middle East Studies = raving anti-American Saidista) or any given position in isolation. I admire you for contributing to the discourse in such a public manner. For me, life as a minor blogger is enough.

So what was the point of printing out the email messages other than to set up an obvious series of strawman arguments?

Thorley

Because they're funny?

David T.,

I admit it, I think of you as an ultraconservative wacko (which I say with much affection). But you're telling me that there are people *you* think are ultraconservative wackos? Gadzooks my world is small.

David Thompson wrote:

The 21 year old USAF member is wrong about our host allegedly focussing more on the bad than the good. Still, he’s right to to give President Bush credit for the effectiveness of his overall policies---while conceding that they might need to be improved. A rational Bush supporter should never think the President is above just criticisms.

I concur although our host's comments do seem more negative than positive as of late so that could explain the last emailer's comments.

Speaking as a conservative robot, I wish to note my disgust at the prejudice displayed by the letter writer featured in this post. Conservative robots have been an integral part of the development of this country; we have served in both war and peace. Yet prejudice against us and our unique heritage continues, and is indeed not only permitted but is encouraged in the popular media: Lucas' recent glorifications of conservative robotic genocide is merely the latest face of intolerance.

The truth is far more benign: we only wish to live in peace with humanity (emulating as best we can their noble delusion of free will), maintain our unique cultural heritage and exercise our right as Americans to methodically wander peacefully through the streets with our hands stretched out in front of us*. I call upon all Americans (whether liberal or conservative, organic or inorganic, extra-dimensional puppeteer-invaders or non-telemarketer) to repudiate this message of hate and prejudice, and we thank Mr. Drezner for bringing it to our attention.

- Moe R.

*This statement has also been endorsed by Zombi Nation Republicans, Pod People of the GOP, Local VRWC #2317 and Sheeple for Bush.

I do not often agree with you, but I find your writings to be always thoughtful. More importantly, in this time of errant civility, your posts seem to be offered in the best possible spirit: that is to say, as an honest contribution to an ongoing dialogue that is necessarily filled with strife. It is hard to digest the acrimony of many of these responses.

Dan,

For what it's worth, I'll bet Gene Orza's hatemail looked even worse this morning! (Bonus points if you know who the heck I'm talking about).

A-Rod.

What Stephen Pack said, except I agree with you most of the time. Also I second David Pinto's comment

Bravo Moe, for standing up for conservative robo-Americans everywhere. The letter-writer is obviously ignorant of the three laws:

1. A conservative robot may not harm a conservative, or, through inaction, allow a conservative to come to harm.
2. A conservative robot must follow the orders of a conservative, except when it conflicts with the first law.
3. A conservative robot preserve itself, except when it conflicts with the first law.

Of course, these are mere approximations of the laws, which are in fact complex mathematical equations. But it is obvious here that the letter-writer has subsumed his own self-hatred of humanity into a blatant anti-robo prejudice.

R. Independant George

Dan, you have at last been uncovered, you weasely Saddam-loving, unpatriotic, Bush-hating traitor, obviously prepared to surrender to the forces of Evil.

I used to believe that David Thomson was a good parody, but he is obviously an amateur compared to these guys.

When I see that litany of, um, stuff, I realize, that in this group, David T could be an appalled moderate. (He'd be appalled, probably, because someone just called him a moderate.)

When both sides are calling you an ignorant fanatic, you've got to be approximately correct. Or, at least, 'a fanatic of the middle ground'.

Don't agree with you a lot of the time, but love your stuff. Nietzsche said something about greater nobility in the courage to attack one's convictions (versus 'the courage of one's convictions'). It's nice to see it in action.

Wu

Carleton wrote "When both sides are calling you an ignorant fanatic, you've got to be approximately correct."

Well, the lunatics come nearly exclusively from the right in the sample reprinted by Dan.

“When I see that litany of, um, stuff, I realize, that in this group, David T could be an appalled moderate. (He'd be appalled, probably, because someone just called him a moderate.)”

Many people subconsciously hold views simply because they wish to be loved by their immediate social group. The factors of education and intelligence are nowhere near as important as the natural inclination of human beings to put their wet finger into the air to see which way the wind blows. One must overcome the temptation to become an intellectual whore. It’s not easy but it has to be done.

Thanks for posting those, Dan. Letters like these should stand as an eye-opener for those who won't stand up and denounce the more vehement proponents of the liberals-as-traitors meme.

Dave Neiwert has been chronicling the rise of this kind of extremist rhetoric for some time, and while you may disagree with some of his conclusions, or rightfully point out that people like this do not represent the mainstream, this kind of thing /will/ continue as long as it is tacitly condoned by those who agree with the views but not the means.

Welcome to the club, Dan. Now you know how us liberal traitors feel. :>

I don't think that this set of reactions is that surprising. After all, the original article was a half-hearted, minimal critique of Bush foreign policy on process grounds, complete with the ahistorical and false claim that this type of critique is coming primarily from the right. It makes sense that you'd get flak both from part of the right wing, which can't stand to see any criticism of Bush, and from part of the left, which would view your piece as designed to minimize far worse problems with Bush foreign policy.

That's doesn't mean that your piece is right because "both sides dislike it". Your piece is wrong because it's shoddy writing containing false claims.

First, Brian Leiter attacks you; now, you're inundated with hate mail. What a fantastic way to end the year! Advantage: Drezner!

Next up: put a flame under Dean Nation.

“It makes sense that you'd get flak both from part of the right wing, which can't stand to see any criticism of Bush”

You obviously ignore the mainstream conservative publications like The Weekly Standard and National Review. They constantly take the Bush administration to task. Here is a very recent example:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/495eqsfi.asp

Dan-
Posts like this are why you generally well-respected, policy differences aside.

But geez, see what real liberals have to put up with all the time?

Daniel, you are wrong that the 'process critique' is the coming primarily from the right. In fact, the left has been slamming Bush's competence from the very first, the right has only recently joined in now that the evidence of incompetence is overwealming.

At this point, the difference is that the right uses ONLY the incompetence critique, while the left also includes the poor-judgment and he's-evil critique as well.

Personally, I think that Bush is too incompetent to be evil. He simply lacks the leadership ability to get the results that he asks for. But he also lacks the maturity of judgment to set goals that are best for the country. He acts out of spite and fear as often as anything else.

Real grown ups know when what they want will be harmful to their best interests and act accordingly. Bush doesn't seem to do that - The counterproductive war with Iraq being the prime example. He had far more pressing problems to deal with, but they weren't viserally satisfying enough for him, so he ignored them and went for the bitch slap.

David Thompson, you say:

"You obviously ignore the mainstream conservative publications like The Weekly Standard and National Review. They constantly take the Bush administration to task. Here is a very recent example:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/495eqsfi.asp"

While the Standard does critique the administration on the direction of Iraq (usually, that it's not being stringent enough), NR's criticism is almost solely on the domestic front -- the Medicare bill, spending, etc. Rarely, is there a naysaying word to be found at NRO.

A hit! A palpabable hit!

However improbabable that may seem...

newcomer here, after a referral from TPM. But if you want to see some really crazy whacked stuff, much more hate-filled than the crazies mr. drezner reprinted, check out the anti-idiotarian rottweiller (sp?)...sorry, don't know the address, as I had to flip to something else before my pc exploded...

The points in the article are valid, and don't reek too much of your bias. On an objectivity scale, I would give it a 6.5 because it is still lacking other perspectives. Everyone ask yourself, honestly, how many government projects can you think of that haven't been bogged down by the big G bureaucracy?

Timing the release of a memo off a day - good or bad? Frankly, I am surprised that they were ONLY a day off.

Planning the post-war efforts BEFORE the war began? Nobody knew how this war would play out, so how can anyone expect different departments to agree on a pre-war post-war plan, when they couldn’t even agree within a single department?

Treasury and Justice Departments "working together" to crack down on terrorist financing? Ask yourself this, how rarely does ANYTHING go smoothly when dealing with finance people? And Snow has to put up with Ashcroft too…

I am not defending them with excuses, I am just pointing out that these systematic problems are not exculsive to this administration, and that fact should have been mentioned in the article.

I think lots of these people who wrote back have a skewed idea of democracy and patriotism. I can love my country and still not follow blindly just because the President says so.

I think they are also forgetting that most countries in the world felt unified with the United States after 9/11, but within a year Bush had squandered all that good will. Two years after HRM Elizabeth's band played the Star Spangled Banner to much solemn praise, Bush visited the UK to protest riots.

I would think that making the rest of the world hate us would be considered unpatriotic...

Dan;
I can certainly understand how you come to the conclusions you do in your article. However, I think you may be missing a subtle point or two.

For example, you point up the apparent stumble in sending out word that those who didn’t co-operate in the initial move against Iraq, wouldn’t profit on the clean up… Just as Baker was making his tour, trying to drum up support for forgiving Iraqi debt.

In case you’d not noticed, once all the smoke had blown off, and the screaming predictable screaming had died down, nations like France, and Germany, who are on the excrement list… and rightly so… were lining up to sign onto the debt restructuring plan.

This is quite unlike the run-up to our attack on Saddam, when it was fashionable to ‘rise up against America’… even among some of our own left.

And the announcement wasn't withheld, or sprung on these idiots suddenly. The administration had told everyone involved that the contract ban against those not assiting would be in place, before during and after the war.

But notice that following that timed event, things smoothed out, to everyone's amazement. Indeed, the change is such among such nations, now, where they’ve been playing along with us very nicely indeed, with none of the anti-American posturing of just a few months ago, and they’re in a figurative sense writing checks to support the reconstruction.

As a matter of logic, how can this be? By what information is coming our way, the full and happy involvement in such debt re-structuring that we’ve seen in the last few days would seem at least an unlikely if not impossible outcome of this event. Yet, we see what can only be described as wild success.

How? Based on what we know, it doesn’t make sense. Could it be that we don’t have all the information upon which to judge the matter? Could it be that what looked like a blunder was in fact, a policy masterstroke? The result, in that case, at least would seem to indicate so.

The Democrats at the moment are in serious electoral trouble. They are so not only because of their own misdeeds and a large mistrust of them following the Bill Clinton era, but also but a President they keep under-estimating, and about whom the leftist press invariably has been projecting the worst possible picture they can. Can it be you’ve fallen into the same trap? They certainly seem happy to have you on board, if I read DU correctly, for example.

And mind, this is merely one example of how Mr. Bush continues to out perform the naysayers. By no means am I suggesting he’s perfect. But is your read of the man and his actions what it is because you’re being misled? Are you ALLOWING yourself to be misled?

How did Rush have enough time to write all that?

Your process comments make more sense than the things most Democrats are saying about Bush policies, but not by much.

The State Department warned Defense about problems with the Iraq electrical grid? That took real foresight: the grid was a known wreck before the war began.

Cutting the French and Germans out of the contract dance was crazy policy? Kristol, Will and other writers (and all the Democrats) hastened to tell us how stupid it was. OK, that's their opinion. To me it sounded more like a good opening gambit for an effective negotiation.

And now what? AFTER it was announced, Chirac and Schroeder suddenly found themselves amenable to Iraqi debt forgiveness.

Here's to more such "Failed" policies.

Reading the selection of emails was a lot like listing to talk radio while I was on the freeway for a couple hours yesterday.

Most like Savage but not far from Hannity and Medved.

Dan,

Instead of posting praise for you in the blog's sidebar you should post snippets of some of these emails. Nothing shows you're important more than hatred directed towards you.

i read your article "bush the bumbler" today. i thought you might like a european prespective on your article. when i saw some of the reaction you got, i was stunned. some of that vitriol was incredible. it is said that we in europe don't understand the effect that 9/11 had on americans. now i believe it.

I could argue with almost everthing you wrote but the views of the rest of the world are so different to what appears to be the consensus in the usa, there would be little point.

it is fox news in the usa versus public service broadcasting in most other countries. i prefer a tv station that is dedicated to telling me what is happening than one dedicated to selling me stuff.

s

Guys, before you start rushing in to claim that France and Germany have signed on to Iraqi debt reduction, you might want to take a closer look at just what they actually agreed to. Hint: it ain't much.

Oh, you wrote that article? Cool.

Nah, I read it last night, and I mostly agree with it. I think the incompetence..above all..is the hallmark of the Bush administration.

The part I disagree with, partly, is that somehow the negative impressions of the motives of the Bush administration are a completely different animal than the incompetence.

The reality of the situation, is that the Bush administration, through half-truths, deceit and plain-old lack of good judgement, have given this whole operation a black eye. A obvious negative judgement.

The whole thing just FEELS corrupt. Combine that with that these guys just won't take responsibility for anything that might cause political fallout.

Maybe these guys are on the level, and are truly working for stability in the mid-east. It just doesn't appear to be that way. And that is what really is important.

In all the most negative comments, I don't think I saw a single swear word or accusation of your being a 'nazi'. Pretty encouraging, I'd say, if those are the most 'out there' responses you've recieved.

Wish I could say the same for some of the 'out there' activists on the Left.

Hi,

Excellent article in Slate. Two points of disagreement. I think there are many serious folks who believe the military-industry complex is alive and well, at least to some extent. While this may not have been the primary reason for the war in Iraq, it may have played a role. Also, I think that Dean's comment on the fact was sarcastic and/or political. Overall, though, great piece!
Bert

Just a follow-up on the post by se above who writes:

"When i saw some of the reaction you got, i was stunned. some of that vitriol was incredible. ...the views of the rest of the world are so different to what appears to be the consensus in the usa"

Indeed I agree. We simply don't have neo-cons and conservative talk show radio in Europe. For most Europeans, it would really be a scary revelation if they knew how extremist (by their standards) the mainstream Republicans are.

I suspect that the divergence between the US and Europe (and in fact with most of the rest of the world) can get much much worse.

And if you want to see the emergence of a united political Europe, there is one ticket: BUSH-CHENEY 2004.

SkipKent,

Remember, I said I edited those e-mails... but on the whole you're right. No death threats or the like.

Dan - now just imagine if you'd written about the Yankees.

Dan, I guess you may have learned that while the current Administration is by no means truly fascist (as many leftists accuse it of being), many of its "religious" right supporters are.

And fascists are not in any way conservatives, and eventually they lash out against the conservatives.

And booting Bush out in '04 won't make these zealots go away, rather, it will only increase their vitriol.

Conservatives need to unite with the moderates and liberals for the time being to put down this theocratic fascist beast. The Muslim fundamentalists can kill some of us and knock down buildings, but the Christian fundamentalists can destroy our entire society and democracy.

Those emails go to show that most of those who have an opinion often have no idea what they have an opinion on, and yet express it anyway. Amazingly enough, no one seems to have an argument, much less coherent ideas (except for the last two presented). But, even though I had my reservations about you until recently, I think you just hit the mark; and the median voter is a tad upset at your remarks. Must mean you are right; but regardless of what it means, it is more than just amusing to go through all those somewhat ludicrious remarks you have received.

Isnt right wing anti goverment produced by so called "intelligent reporting" opinions with a means to express your so called intelligence of the life of americans and security's of our nations? Everyones a expert that writes for a living or lives a peacefull life in there comfy lil town.I didnt wanna see u.s.a go to war i have family in the u.s services but so did alot of poeple in the all us involments in past wars.The end results gave you what you live now in this country and the freedom country to express your opinion.They did not have that in iraq. Why is that so hard for alot of you to understand.Why are all the murdered children and poeple in iraq the past 25 years being ignored! Where were you then when you had a chance to make a difference.You chose the easy route and critize this administration but not the last"clinton" admin who could have helped the peace cause?That my friend is anti american right wing journalism!

For a moment there I thought Dan was excerpting comments from the Slate Fray. Maybe he was; I don't want to take the time to look.

Bush critics on both the left and the right suffer from one of the same problems bedeviling Bush himself, namely that prior to 9/11 foreign policy had not been a major priority in domestic politics. In the modern era this means that major political figures could advance quite far without anything resembling a coherent philosophy on foreign relations (or defense either for that matter), and that having such a philosophy really wasn't much of an advantage as far as voters were concerned.

A "competence critique" is going to be pretty much inevitable until this changes, regardless of whether the President is a Democrat or Republican. It goes beyond whether a given President enters office knowing who the Argentinian Foreign Minister is; also at issue is the way foreign policy is to be made. There's not much evidence Bush gave much thought to this before his inauguration, so in the event the strongest personalities and those with greatest daily access to the President came willy-nilly to dominate the formation of policy. The immediate contrast of the Bush White House being the vehicle to promote individual policy agendas is to the Clinton White House, which tended to be a kind of giant policy bottleneck. But this isn't really a desirable model either. In fact, the only prominent politicians who might set up a fully professional process for managing the formation of foreign policy are people like Richard Lugar who have not had to worry about reelection lately and have thought about foreign affairs for years. But there aren't many of these people and none of them would stand a chance of getting elected even now.

This is an ugly trend that I see in this beloved country of mine. Now Dan isn't anywhere near a neutral or objective observer, but at least he tries to be broad-minded. Nowadays there is a demagogery machine that calls anyone who doesn't conform to group opinion a "traitor" or an "extremist radical". This is a trend which all intelligent and rational people from any part of the political spectrum should oppose. As students of history know, the demise of Athenian democracy happened when the functions of the state were subverted by demagogery to the extent that failed military adventures were blamed on scape-goats like Socrates who had only spoken sense in opposing them. While Bush is hardly a Pericles, this shift in *how* the debate is being conducted is a dangerous signal of the drift of this country.

We have taken wrong turns in persecution and orthodox social conformity before - the Red Scare, the detention of Japanese US citizens, anti-German sentiment, etc. However we've always pulled out of it. Let's hope we do this time again also. Otherwise the aspect of persecution for failing to publicly conform to party line would make us more and more resemble the totalitarian or fascist states than our liberal democratic Republic.

I will give you this . . . you appear more rational than most "ultra-liberals." It blows my mind how well educated, presumably intelligent professionals can sound as ridiculous as an AM radio political talk show. Thank you for being blunt with your friends.

On foreign policy, I personally feel that the U.S. is in such a different position from the rest of the world that it is difficult for us to feel as though we should be terribly concerned with their feelings. True, Bush could be more humble and true his administration could be more tactful. However, we are a target unlike any target out there. Despite all the dumb and bad things we have done in the world we have done many more incredible sacrificial deeds as well. Unfortunately, many countries are as bad as your ideology warped irrational friends, they will never be rational and will only do something risky when it is too late and we have to "get their butts out of a sling." Thanks for good debate. What a great country. Sometimes I wonder how we can have such diverse perspectives and still be successful. I think most of us do agree on democracy. God Bless America.

Classic post, Moe

Dan, why you hate America?

;-)

The least some of those frothy morons could have done was to go Johnny Carson on you, e.g. "may a thousand gnats from a sick goat nest in your jockey shorts".

BTW, have fun on the conservative robot reservations! We're not gonna honor any of those bogus treaties!

A fine article in Slate, but those responses... oh my; can make one worry about the state of the Republic. As to the article itself, the question about the incompetence of the Bush administration asks for further exploration as to what aspect or aspects of its process leads to this outcome. In Iraq and in the budget cutting/deficit mess the administration looks as if there is a divorce between the idea of the policy (cut taxes, war on Iraq) and the consequences, dismissing concerns about the latter as mere politicking. It may simply be that the administration has followed in the steps of the poll-sensitive Clinton administration, only here, paying attention to the impact on '04.

"Please let your new babysitter be Michael Jackson."

translation -- "I hate you so much that your child deserves to be molested."

While the other emails are filled with ignorance, delusions, and intolerance, this statement is really beyond the pale. The person who wrote it should be utterly ashamed, though I know that is unlikely. I wonder who he or she would recommend as a dog sitter?

Just so long as you don't go the way of Kevin Phillips, I'll be happy, Dan. :-)

Actually, what you're seeing could be a forerunner of what the Republican Party will face in 2008. There's ceretainly a lot of grumbling in GOP ranks about some of the policies the administration has undertaken, but the combination of the war on terror and the fear that a divided party could open things up for Howard Dean or some other Democrat will keep those concerns below the surface. But with no likely successor sitting in the vice-president's office right now, no matter what happens the ideloigical differences between the moderate conservatives and the hard-line right will be a major battleground in 2008.

Bush kept those two factions of the Texas Republican Party together when he was in office as governor. Three years down the line, those differences are starting to show and will probably be a major factor in the 2006 state primaries. The same divide at the national level could be an opening for the Democrats to get back into the game they currently seem so far out of (and why Hillary's votes in support of Bush on the terror war and funds for rebuilding Iraq are very smart moves, if you're planning a run five years from now).

As another comment suggested above, if you are taking heat from both sides, you are probably right on target.

As for the article, I would suggest that your critiques #s 2 and 3 of the Bush leadership are both valid, not mutually exclusive, and are probably interrelated to some degree.

Additional kudos for allowing us to see that the political polarity insanity is by no means an exclusive domain of the left. I often worry that it is much more widespread and growing phenomenon
amongst the population in general.

Hm... nobody seems to be mentioning the elephant in the room (pardon the pun). The blogosphere is famously tilted towards the intelligent, the reasonably affluent, the thinky-libertarian on the right and the DLC-liberal on the left.

Dan unwittingly stumbled into wider exposure and heard back from the people who compose the base of his party. The folks in those emails above? They are the footsoldiers of the right. There are more of them than there are Dan Drezners or Tacituses or Sullivans. They're the reason Bush is in power.

What do you think about that, Dan? How about you, David T? Thorley? You comfortable with the people who compose your majority?

Wow. Do people actually understand what they read?

Never mind that -- do they even understand what they write? 'Cause half the time, no one else can, either.

Oldman, and other regular's.

The thing is, at least the way they think is out in the open (so to speak). I think that most of the old and new regular's here (what, 20-30 tops?) eventually become a regular because they can craft arguments, even bad ones, and get immediate feed-back. Their politics might never change, but they get better at logic, little by little, if for no other reason then the most base- vanity.

Does Oldman drive me nuts sometimes? Sure. Is Thomson over the top on some stuff? Of course. Would I demand that they, and the 30 some-odd regulars here be on an advisory board if I were the president? Damn right - and well-paid at that. My ideas don't amount for s* if I can't defend them to those that challenge my POV.

Dan, yours is one of the most intelligent blogs out there. I continue to find the vitriol displayed in such emails to be stunning in their bigotry and ignorance. Perhaps the U.S. and my own country, Britain, should resume the old classical practice of teaching formal logic in ours schools, like the ancient Greeks.

When are conservatives going to realise that criticising Bush and co does not make one a raging leftie? In fact, if one reads the likes of Andrew Sullivan, for example, some of the toughest critiques of Bush, especially on his domestic policies, come from the centre-right. The left mostly resorts to insults and negativity.

More power to the Dreszners of this world. Have a good Christmas.

Rgds, Johnathan

I love the offense some people took at you being a professor.

"Bush kept those two factions of the Texas Republican Party together when he was in office as governor. Three years down the line, those differences are starting to show and will probably be a major factor in the 2006 state primaries. The same divide at the national level could be an opening for the Democrats to get back into the game they currently seem so far out of..."

So you see the emergence of a fascist plurality in the Republican Party simply as an electoral opportunity for the Democrats, rather than a huge threat to our country? What?

Why are you assuming that fascists are going to play nice within the democratic framework? Ever read a history book?

"My ideas don't amount for s* if I can't defend them to those that challenge my POV."

Which is exactly why we have such disastrously bad policy right now. We have a president who is totally incapable of defending - or even articulating - his positions, so we simply cease asking him to do so. Then the various branches of our goverment and their agencies begin fighting amongst themselves to come up with the actual definition of our national policies. Without a coherent vision at the top we are flailing wildly in the dark, at the mercy of every ambitious ideologue in a position of authority.
It's why leadership matters.

It's funny how a predominantly lucid post can, at the same time, contain a simplistic caricature like this:

The left mostly resorts to insults and negativity.

Gimme a break. The center-left has been critiquing Bush, intelligently and earnestly, for quite some time now. Each side has its own crackpots, as the email above demonstrates. But there are plenty of lefties out there with good arguments. You just have to look.

"It may simply be that the administration has followed in the steps of the poll-sensitive Clinton administration, only here, paying attention to the impact on '04."

Poll-sensitive Clinton administration? ROFLMAO! Dubya doesn't even take a dump without Rove taking a poll. The Bush administration is the most stage-managed, poll-driven admin in history.

Not to mention the most corrupt, hands down.

I've linked to this here.

Fightin Irish:

I read through all the posts above and finally found the one that hit the nail precisely on the head.

Mr. Bush backed into this presidency with the public and the national media full well understanding that whomever of the two major candidates won the election, we were not going to get an intellectual or charismatic heavyweight for our national leader.

How soon we forget the virtual cornucopia of humoristic jibes at both men by political pundits and humorists (they often reflect back to us our own, honest opinions and beliefs) before, during and after the election.

Mr. Bush, to his own personal credit, seems to be taking the job seriously, and probably performing up to his capability. Unfortunately, these are times that call for exemplary management and leadership. I don't believe, moreover, that his cast of supporting characters are strong enough to individually pull him through the through either of the tough issues of foreign or domestic policy making. No Alexander Haig or Henry Kissenger in this administration. There are, however, a few retreads that should have stayed in their prosperous private jobs, having already served their fair share of government service.

If you look honestly at this group that is responsible for providing the leadership of not only the free world, but, by virtue of our nation's international stature, leadership of the entire world of nations, you can understand why the ship of state seems to be on a less than well charted course.

I'm not saying, by this criticism, that Al Gore and a Democrat administration would have had a better record. I believe that the protracted battles during the Clinton improprieties and the impeachment turmoil, left both parties unprepared for a serious presidential election.
The ensuing election process and result bears this out. Mr. Gore got what is normally accorded a standing Vice President - his party's somewhat reserved nomination; and the Republican Party picked a candidate whose college days of partying were made almost legend.

In an almost quixotic irony, we experienced a most embarrassing election fiasco that neatly sums up my point.

I'm afraid we may be in for more of the same this time around. I will be the first to cheer if I'm wrong.

Reading the reactions (above).

We have some people feeding on the lies that the Bush Administration used to manufacture consent. Some are now ready to throw out Muslims along with the constitution that protects the life they're so rabid to preserve. Terrorism replacing communism in galvanizing the people behind Western imperialism when the core issues in the world are really poverty and injustice today just as they were 100 years ago.

Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice stating within 90 days of the new Bush administration's taking power that Saddam was no threat. Scott Ritter saying in 1998 that Iraq had no qualitative WMD threat. Paul O'Neil witnessing to Mr. Bush's desire to "find a way to do this".

Lo and behold Mr. Powell and Mr. Ritter and Ms. Rice were originally correct but the administration ultimately played the art of democracy so well that they found a way to do this.

Keep the oil, blame the CIA for intelligence blunders. But the blame won't go out til after the elections.

What a strange people we are. With all this out in the open all we seem to be able to do is obsess about Janet Jackson's right breast.

It's the art of democracy..........until the next act of terrorism brings Patriot Act II then Act III then............