Bush... a winner???

Anybody writing an opinion piece entitled “Why Bush Will Be A Winner” (Washington Post) must be insane or have criminal intentions. William Kristol is probably insane and has criminal intentions. What are his arguments for calling Bush a winner?

Kristol praises Bush because there has not been a second terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. This “achievement” is build on quicksand, it can vanish any day.

Second, Kristol claims the economy is strong. Not so. The U.S. government is paying itself to death financing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. America only survives on borrowed money.

Third, argues Kristol, on the war in Iraq “we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome”. Where he gets that idea? Shouldn't he be listening to the men and women in uniform with their boots on the ground in Iraq? They could tell him a different story. And the war in Afghanistan “going reasonably well”? Well, the output of opium is rising and the number of suicide bombings is increasing. And of course Kristol once again claims Saddam Hussein had connections with al-Qaeda. The truth is al-Qaeda couldn't get a foothold in Iraq under Saddam, while today Iraq is its main recruiting and training base.

Some people even forget their own words. In April 2003, Kristol wrote: “The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively.” Today, the first is “going reasonably well” and as to the second “we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome”. What happened to those decisive victories?

Some people will always refuse to see the truth. Nobody should believe them. And a newspaper like the Washington Post shouldn't print such nonsense.

Kristol concludes “If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president”. Petraeus, nor any other American commander will ever win in Iraq, that is an absolute certainty written in marble. As for a Republican win in 2008, who is willing to bet on that?