President George W. Bush.

Bush in Twilight

Last year, Rolling Stone magazine published an artist's rendition of the President on its cover. This is not so unusual by itself, except for the harshness of the picture and the accompanying headline. It depicted George W. Bush sitting on a stool with a hangdog expression on his face, wearing a dunce cap on his head. The headline read, "The Worst President in History?" Even accounting for Rolling Stone's known left-wing bias, the cover and accompanying story reflects a general sense of anger and bitterness that many feel toward George W. Bush and his administration. One can argue all day about the accuracy of polls and polling techniques, but I have yet to see one that puts the President's approval numbers much above thirty percent in the past year. Even the mainstream press, which refused to argue with Bush's war policies while they were being crafted, have turned on Bush like the attack dogs they can be. MSNBC's reporting has turned sharply critical, with Fox News still in Republican propaganda mode. (Yes, this blog is Democrat-leaning, but at least I don't falsely claim to be "fair and balanced.") CNN has been skeptical of the war almost from the moment Saddam's statue fell, and for a while, their ratings suffered because of it. No longer. When I go out with friends to local taverns, and the talk turns to Bush and the war, practically no one is expressing anger at terrorists anymore, except for Bin Laden. The anger is reserved for Bush and his handling of our war strategy. People, at least in Illinois, want to know why we neck-popped the wrong guy and why we aren't winning in Iraq. So do I. The President continues to insist that victory is still attainable, that to pull out before Nouri Al-Maliki's "government" has a real chance to succeed, would have dire consequences for America and Iraq. But I just want to know what his plan is beyond holding Iraq until things magically get better. The terrorists are never, ever going to give up. The Taliban held off the Soviet Union for twenty years in Afghanistan, and Iraqi fighters have adopted their fighting styles and religious fundamentalism. Have you ever heard the expression "You know karate, but I know crazy?" The United States has excellent "karate" in that we have a strong, disciplined fighting force and high-tech weaponry and the means to deliver it. But the terrorists we fight are crazy. They are far, far more committed than we ever will or could be. When someone is determined to die and is convinced that heaven is waiting for him, how do you stop that person? You can't threaten to kill them. They want to die. When was the last time you heard of an American who was willing to strap a bomb to his chest and blow up an Iranian embassy? The answer is never, because we are not crazy and desperate the way Islamofascists are. And as far as the "winning hearts and minds" strategy is concerned, you don't win them by kicking people's doors down, pointing rifles in their faces, and demanding to know where their father/uncle/brother is. I don 't claim to have the answers, and I am not a soldier, strategist, or politician. But there has to be a better way of stopping terrorism than blowing other countries to pieces and not being able to put them back together again. See related article.