I had hoped by voting for Bush in 2004 that the situation in the Middle East would be so set that even an unsympathetic President couldn't undo what Bush had done if he did a good job in the Middle East.
Bush did a good job. The price he had to pay to the Democrat Congress was to open the government pocket book. That has now come back to haunt the Democrats. Heh. Outsmarted by the dumbest President ever. It has to gall.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
I was reading a review of a recent US Grant biography, U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth,that had this interesting description of Grant
During his presidency, to be sure, the Democratic press condemned Grant as at once feeble, conniving, and imperious—attacks similar to those that the Democrats had made on Lincoln.Or George Bush for that matter.
A protest against Israeli operations in Gaza was called off because not enough Palestinians showed up.
RAMALLAH - It's quiet in Ramallah. At the northern entrance to the city, not far from the mall, a new fountain spouts water. Next to it lies a sign in English: "Gaza under fire." But it seems the Gaza Strip has never been so far away. Tel Aviv, meanwhile, feels closer than ever. Almost every day at 1 P.M., a demonstration leaves Manara Square in the city center, expressing support for the residents of the Gaza Strip. The number of participants has declined, however, on a daily basis, and on Wednesday the demonstration was called off for a lack of protesters.What explains this lack of solidarity? Walid Omari, the Al-Jazeera bureau chief for the Palestinian Authority and Israel, thinks he knows.
Dozens of men sit in cafes near the square playing cards. In the background, the television blasts the voices of Al-Jazeera reporters, who provide continual updates about the events taking place in the Strip. But even the dramatic reports do not stop the card players for a moment. Occasionally one of them glances up at the screen, but then gets back to business.
Omari explains that the quiet all over the West Bank in the face of the events in Gaza stems mainly from disappointment and frustration with the leadership of Hamas and Fatah.In other words " I'm not having any of what they are having." A wise move. Perhaps Israel has sufficiently demoralized the Palestinians to the point that they are becoming willing to deal.
"The residents of the West Bank lost a great deal in the course of the last Intifada, but saw no achievements. They are very afraid of more losses, mainly in light of the crisis of confidence between the Palestinian street and its leadership.
After 19 days of fighting and more than 1,000 Palestinian fatalities, the first significant signs that Hamas is breaking could be seen Wednesday night. Hamas representatives to talks with Egypt announced an agreement in principle on Wednesday to the Egyptian cease-fire proposal. They also demanded several clarifications, primarily from Israel.So Walid seems to have it right. A lot of blood and destruction for no gain.
The war in Gaza isn't over yet. The final days of the Second Lebanon War show that it's best to be wary of agreements that come too early. But the way things looked on Wednesday, Hamas seems to be willing to accept the Egyptian initiative, which is almost a kind of surrender agreement for it.
The Egyptian proposal is mostly bad for Hamas. It doesn't let the organization bring the Palestinian public any political achievement that would justify the blood that has been spilled, and even forces on it the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, in the form of its renewed presence at the Rafah crossing (as a condition for its reopening).
Once the cease-fire is reached, the IDF will withdraw from the positions it captured in Gaza, and only then will the two sides begin to discuss the opening of border crossings and removal of the blockade, which was the reason Hamas gave for waging war. The most that Cairo is offering is a timetable for the opening of the crossing points, and even that depends on negotiations due to begin after the cease-fire is reached, and it's tough to know how or when they will end.
Arab League officials announced Wednesday night that they still did not have the necessary legal quorum to convene an emergency Arab League summit in Doha on Friday to discuss Israel's offensive in Gaza.So the Arabs don't seem to have a sense of urgency about the discussions. Advantage Israel.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia on Wednesday called for its own emergency meeting of Gulf Countries in Riyadh to discuss the IDF operation in Gaza on Thursday.So not only are the Saudis and others dragging their feet, but the meeting on Gaza will be a side show to more pressing business - an economic summit. What we are seeing is a realignment of Middle East interests.
King Abdullah called for the meeting Thursday in the Saudi capital of Riyadh "due to the escalation of the latest events resulting from the Israeli aggression on the Palestinian people and the current circumstances in the Arab world," said a Foreign Ministry statement.
Arab states such as Qatar and Syria have been pushing for an emergency Arab summit to help put an end to Operation Cast Lead, which has resulted in the death of more than 900 Palestinians, most of them believed to be Hamas members.
However, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two Western-backed political heavyweights in the region, along with Tunisia, have rejected holding a summit in Doha, suggesting instead that Arab leaders hold talks in Kuwait on Sunday on the sidelines of a planned Arab economic summit.
A decade ago, Western and Israeli leaders could count on Turkey as an ally. A solid NATO member, Ankara took decisions based on pragmatic calculations of interest - and erred on the side of caution if at all. But under the rule of the Islamic conservative AKP, this has changed.Turkey has land borders on its Middle East Side with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Georgia. And on the Black sea it borders a number of countries including Russia with whom it seems to have formed an understanding if not an alignment.
In the face of Hamas rockets, Israel could have expected more understanding from a country long suffering from aggressive PKK terrorism. The vehemence with which Turkish leaders attacked Israel, and their apparent willingness to convey Hamas' position to the United Nations, came as a surprise to many.
Some of this may be explained by pandering to the Islamic conservative AKP's hard-core base. But Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's words - that Israel's actions will be punished by God and help lead it to self-destruction - are too significant to be taken lightly. Indeed, they are part of the trend of a Turkish government guided more by Islamic solidarity and anti-Western sentiment than by pragmatic calculations of interest. Indeed, Turkey's international behavior suggests that its attachment to the West is tenuous at best - and eroding.
Ankara's position on Iran has been similarly equivocal. When in Washington recently, Erdogan observed that "those who ask Iran not to produce nuclear weapons should give up their own nuclear weapons first" - a position that fits neither with Turkey's membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NATO.So what does the future hold for the Middle East? The only certainty is that the countries of the region will find new and exciting ways to damage their own interests. The only exception to this rule seems to be Israel. At least for as long as George Bush has been in office. Bush's policy has been to isolate Syria and Iran.
More broadly, Erdogan has in recent years shown a remarkable willingness to meet with rogue regimes. Ankara's improving relationships with Syria and Iran are understandable, given that they are neighbors with which Turkey needs to work. But its decision to welcome Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with full honors in January 2008, or to invite Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to the AKP party headquarters in 2006, cannot be explained away simply by pragmatic decisions born out of necessity. Indeed, these decisions need to be seen in the context of the AKP's gradual change, with Islamic self-identification gaining ground in both domestic and foreign policy. Since reelection in 2007, the AKP has focused more on the advancement of Islamic values in Turkey's society and state than on democratic reform. In foreign policy, Islamic solidarity and anti-Western sentiment have gained ground - which in turn influence the views of society at large, making Turkey as a nation less Western.
U.S. president-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday said that he is going to work toward a comprehensive peace in the Middle East "on day one" of presidency on January 20, and that would include Iran and Syria.In other words he intends to sell out the Israelis. He won't be the first US President to pull that trick. What I would like to know is what kind of campaign donations Obama got from the Syria/Iran axis? I'd guess that some one knows the answer and is holding the information until it can do Obama the most damage.
"We're going to have to take a regional approach," said Obama in an interview with CBS Evening News. "We're going to have to involve Syria in discussions. We're going to have to engage Iran in ways that we have not before."
"We've got to have a clear bottom line that Israel's security is paramount," Obama said.
I have been trying to decide if the introduction to the next story should be the Mikado's List Song or Santa Claus Is Coming To Town. So I've decided to do them both. Think of it as low culture and lower culture. Popular entertainments for the times. You will note the song from the Mikado has been updated for modern times. I'm looking forward to next year's version updated to include Chicago Politics. There is an opening for a writer there.
Here is the lie, which caught my eye because of the phrasing Obama was using during his press conference on Daschle’s appointment:Well yes. It appears that the Smartest President Elect Ever™ is a moron. Luckily for America he is not as dumb as Bush. OTOH Bush only had a couple of shoes thrown at him. Bush ducked both shoes. Obama looks like he is going to get the book thrown at him. We will soon find out how good he is at ducking.
“I had no contact with the governor’s office. I did not speak to the governor about these issues. That I know for certain.”
It is a lie because now we know Obama’s Chief of Staff provided Blagojevich Obama’s list of candidates he thought should fill his seat. The news broke last night:Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.Emphasis mine. Does Senator Obama really think the American people care about the parsing of ‘talked’ verses ’sent my list of candidates through my Chief of Staff’? Come on! Who gave the list to Emmanuel? Obama of course! It was Obama’s list of candidates Blagojevich was working with. OMG - are these people morons?
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
…
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
And it may get worse. As I noted previously, when reviewing the infamous November 10, 2008 conference call, there were some counter offers from team Obama to team Blagojevich to try and tone down the quid pro quo, to make it less apparent to the public. The first one listed in the criminal complaint covers a two year ‘quiet period’ so that the connection of the quid pro quo to the senate seat would not be so damn obvious. The Team Obama proposal got a big response out of Blagojevich:Obama lied and his supporters cried. In fact judging by a comment or two here they are crying already. I think they should keep in mind the words of a very wise man on a somewhat similar subject. Most Unfortunate.[statement 6] ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.”Note he is not saying ‘get nothing’ forever, he is complaining about getting nothing for two years. This delaying tactic comes up later in the conference call as well, when discussing what seems to be the final solution, a three-way deal with the SEIU and a golden parachute job for Blagojevich and/or his wife:[statement 8] HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability. HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.If Team Obama proposed a delaying tactic to make any payback more stealthy, they are in trouble. If, as the last statement appears to indicate, they agreed on an even more stealthy plan using the SEIU it would be worse. We don’t know how deep Team Obama got into the muck, but we do know they were in it. And for Obama to claim the opposite was probably the biggest crime of all.
…[Gap 5]…
[statement 9] One of ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s advisors said he likes the idea, it sounds like a good idea, but advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH to be leery of promises for something two years from now.
…[Gap 6]…
[statement 10] ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said they would take the job now.
…[Gap 7]…
[statement 11] Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others on the phone call discussed various ways ROD BLAGOJEVICH can “monetize” the relationships he is making as Governor to make money after ROD BLAGOJEVICH is no longer Governor.
Hillary Clinton called for the selection of Obama as the Democrat Party nominee for President.
"In the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and our country, let's declare in one voice, right here, right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and that he will be our next president," Clinton said. "Madame Secretary, I move that the convention suspend the procedural rules and suspend the further conduct of the roll-call vote, all votes cast by the delegates will be counted, and I move Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party."I guess that lets Bush off the hook.
American Thinker recounts the latest moves in Congress with respect to drilling for new oil resources.
After reporting yesterday on Nancy Pelosi's desire to develop a comprehensive energy bill instead of an up or down vote on lifting off shore drilling restrictions, the GOP immediately saw through her transparent attempt to make the bill so poisonous some in her own party could never vote for it and have rejected the idea outright.Cute. it appears the Democrats are not serious about gaining new sources of marketable oil.
Republicans lambasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) energy plan Saturday advising her to “get out of the way” if she was not going to accept GOP solutions to the energy crisis.And how about them Russians? Wretchard looks at Russia's energy plan.
In her Saturday radio address Pelosi announced that Democrats would consider opening up parts of the outer continental shelf for drilling as a part of a broad new energy plan that will be unveiled in the coming weeks.
[snip]
Republicans soundly rejected Pelosi’s proposal – indicating it was too little too late.
“Madame Speaker, we ask you to work with us to help Americans feeling pain at the pump by developing more American energy,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). “If you refuse, we simply ask you get out of the way and allow us to help the people that sent us here.They understand how flawed and out of touch your caucus is on energy issues, and so do we.”
Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) added, ““There is no better, more qualified spokesperson for the Democratic Party’s failed energy policies than Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
Most of Russia’s current power and influence comes from its production and control of energy. According to the DOE, “Russia’s economic growth over the past seven years has been driven primarily by energy exports, given the increase in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil prices during the period.”So natural gas is not only a money maker for Russia. It is also a knife at the throat of Europe. However, it seems as if some one in Europe has grown a pair. And who would that be? A woman. German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“Russia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil and natural gas exports. In order to manage windfall oil receipts, the government established a stabilization fund in 2004. By the end of 2007, the fund was expected to be worth $158 billion, or about 12 percent of the country’s nominal GDP. According to calculations by Alfa Bank, the fuel sector accounts for about 20.5 percent of GDP, down from around 22 percent in 2000. According to IMF and World Bank estimates, the oil and gas sector generated more than 60 percent of Russia’s export revenues (64% in 2007), and accounted for 30 percent of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country.”
Russia’s major market for natural gas is Europe.
Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, said "there is no such notion anymore in Georgia as Russian peacekeepers".You know I think the correlation of forces is changing. I believe a lot of this is due to Russia overplaying its hand in Georgia.
"There can be no Russian peacekeepers, these are just Russian forces."
Saakashvili was speaking at a news conference in Tbilisi with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, at which Merkel gave her support to Georgia's bid to join Nato, an ambition that is strongly opposed by Russia.
"Georgia will become a member of Nato if it wants to - and it does want to," Merkel said.
KIEV -- Ukraine said Saturday that it was ready to make its missile-warning systems available for Western countries after Russia announced that it was pulling out of a long-term cooperation agreement involving them.And not just the missile shield. The Ukraine wants to close the Black Sea to the Russian Fleet. That has got to hurt.
A ministry statement said Russia's abrogation earlier this year of an agreement involving two tracking stations allowed Ukraine to cooperate with other countries on missile-warning systems and satellite tracking.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko issued a decree last week putting an end to Ukraine's participation in the accord in view of Russia's own abrogation of the deal.
A top Ukrainian security official, meanwhile, on Saturday discounted any notion of a separatist rebellion in Crimea as President Viktor Yushchenko proposed Kremlin talks on the issue of the Russian fleet based there.
Yushchenko enraged Moscow this week by ordering restrictions on the movement of ships in the Black Sea Fleet, based in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Russia's military vowed to ignore the rules, saying the fleet answered only to Russia's president.
In the comments here some one said:
Except that Carter currently has higher approval ratings than Bush does.To which I replied:
Some one in this thread said: "our products aren’t competitive"
I said:
A real shame exports are growing at a rate of about 2.8% a year. It is a shame manufacturing is booming. It is a shame Germans are moving factories to America.
It is a shame the Iraqis are getting a handle on Iraq. It is a shame they are holding national elections in October. It is a shame their economy is growing 5% a year.
It is a shame oil prices are up giving a boost to the sale of hybrids and high mileage vehicles.
It is a shame unemployment in the “worst economy since the depression” is only around 5%. It is a shame it only grew .9%. It is a shame that higher growth is expected in the coming quarters. Did I mention that Germans are building factories in America?
Considering the doofus we have as President it is a shame things are going as well as they are.
H/T Instapundit
Commenter DKK adds: It's a shame we are exporting Buicks TO China and Toyota is going to start building cars here for export.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
President Bush gave a speech at the Israeli Parliament.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.And right away Obama jumps up and said Bush accused him of appeasement.
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" Thursday after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists — early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.And you know, Bush never mentioned Obama. Now why would he chime in unless he felt guilty about his appeasement policies? You know the guy who wants to bomb our weak friend Pakistan and talk to our enemies in Iran.
The White House denied Bush had targeted Obama, who said the Republican commander in chief's intent was obvious.
Stretch them to the breaking point and then increase the pressure. Collapse will follow. In the early days of the siege of Richmond, Lee admitted that if Grant had been able to bring one or two more brigades to bear he would have been crushed as he had no reserves left.
It appears that this is what Bush has done in Iraq according to the Weekly Standard. It appears that Bush made one of the most audacious moves in civilian control of the Military since Lincoln appointed Relentless Grant to lead the Union Armies.
In September, Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired general Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and Pace. Keane insisted the "train and leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced. But now, with Bush favoring a strategy nearly identical to Keane's, he didn't object. "Rumsfeld was never a lose guy," a Bush adviser said. "He always wanted to win."The article goes into General Petraeus' call for more brigades. The initial plan called for a one or two brigade surge. Petraeus asked for 5 brigades and got them.
With Bush's connivance, Cheney asked the chiefs a series of questions designed to ease their qualms about a surge. What would be the consequences of losing in Iraq? Was the Iraqi army capable of quelling the sectarian violence without substantial help from American troops?
The chiefs had real grievances to air, and they didn't hold back. Schoomaker cited the stress on combat forces from repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, Bush told me, was "the main thing I remember from that meeting. That was clearly a factor in some of the people around the table's thinking . . . if you sustain our level, much less increase the level, you could, Mr. President, strain the force, which is an important consideration."
Bush agreed that strain was a problem. Then he delivered a sharp rejoinder, touching on a theme he returned to in nearly every meeting on Iraq. "The biggest strain on the force would be a defeat in Iraq," he said. Winning trumped strain. To alleviate the strain, the president committed to enlarging the Army by two divisions and increasing the size of the Marine Corps. The chiefs had two more complaints. The military, practically alone, was carrying the load in Iraq. Where were the civilians from the State Department and other agencies? Again, Bush agreed with their point. He promised to assign more civilians to Iraq. (The number of provincial reconstruction teams was soon doubled.)
Their final problem was the unreliability of Iraq's Shia government and army. Would Iraqi forces show up and do their part in the surge? And would they act in a non-sectarian manner, treating Sunnis the same as Shia? Bush said he'd get a public commitment on both counts from Maliki before making a final decision on the surge. And he did.
ABC Television has aired a major special on the drug war in Bolivia which, according to the Bush Administration, is our "best hope" for winning the drug war in South America.
Glad to hear that.
What was the ABC editorial comment on the Bush plan?
ABC has decisively concluded that there is no hope and that the war on drug production has already been lost.
You missed that report? No wonder. It was broadcast on December 28, 1992.
Good news for Democrats. Something like 100,000 American troops will be leaving Iraq over the next few years.
Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.I think he is wrong about removing the war from contention. I remember it like it was yesterday, the 2004 Presidential campaign where we re-fought the Vietnam War. With Kerry the great war hero and Bush the shirker of duty. With a large side dish of Iraq thrown in to give the meal some potential contrasting flavors.
The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.
"The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That's very good news. But it won't have to stand alone," General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.
Bringing the war to a close by the end of 2008 will ensure that the next president will face a fait accompli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.
Quagmire, eh?I think the point about not letting Iraq stand alone is very important. That is why you see it here twice. We back up the elected government of Iraq with about two divisions (20,000 troops) and the rest will be logistics, probably including Corps of Engineers type stuff (mostly consulting).
Looks like victory at last is here. The terrorists have been routed and the insurgency quelled.
Wapshott reported: “The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.”
This is Korea II, just as I have said in print and on this blog.
I won’t go into the you’re-full-of-crap e-mails I have received over time.
Lute told reporters: “The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That’s very good news. But it won’t have to stand alone.”
I think the ideal would be to have the legislatures of America and Iraq equally esteemed.
Does that mean the Iraqis have to fall to the American level? Or would the Americans have to rise to the Iraqi level?
As soon as their Parliament is as effective as our current Congress I think we can safely say the Iraqis have arrived at First World Governing Standards.
Prompted by dday who says: "My optimism is tempered by years and years of history." Who thinks Iraq is lost because its government is behaving no better than ours. d-day wants official reconciliation between Shia and Sunni in Iraq or that will prove Malaki is no good. I have a slightly different proposition: I want official reconciliation between Republicans and Democrats in America or that will prove Bush is no good.
QED.
Or at least one of his supporters does. Is it Barak's personal problem? Nope. Well at least not obviously. It is a problem with Dick Cheney.
Rosa Brooks of the Los Angeles Times has decided to go all Soviet on the Vice President and rather than impeach him - get him declared mentally incompetent - psychotic.
You have to admire the effect Cheney and Bush have on some people with their secret mind rays. A small suggestion Rosa. Double up on the tinfoil.
About Iraq:
Our generals up 'til now didn't win. That was bad. Our generals up 'til now didn't lose. That was good.
In addition too little force allowed the insurgents free play. That was bad. Too little force allowed the Iraqis to get to know the insurgents on an intimate basis. That was good.
Out of bad strategy and bad tactics victory may yet come.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
Scott Ott reports:
(2007-09-19) — President George Bush today said he would consider “alternative means” to accommodate a request by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit ‘Ground Zero‘, the former site of the World Trade Center towers, during his trip to the United Nations next week.Heh.
“You know the old expression,” Mr. Bush said. “If Mahmoud can’t come to Ground Zero, we may have to bring Ground Zero to Mahmoud.”
The White House refused to clarify the president’s statement.
Commenter Cormac-ballz asks:
What I don't get is: Congress is less popular than Bush because they didn't stop the war/stand up to Bush etc.The Democrats won Congress by replacing the Republicans in the South with Blue Dog Democrats.
But Bush should be less popular because he's the one persecuting the war in first place!
Is there something about U.S. citizens that I fail to grasp? Is it because they don't sympathise with people they view as wimpy (e.g., Congress).
