Read the article.

Just want to note that while those who say that Iraq will turn out fine in the long run may well be correct, that's not the case made by the Bush administration itself.

In selling the Iraq war, the message that came across to the public loudly and clearly was "this will all be over soon," as indicated by lowball reconstruction cost estimates and troop levels, rosy predictions of flowers and sweetmeats, Garner's 90-day goal, etc. Sure, you can find a quote or two where Bush said something to the effect that this would be "difficult" or something like that, but the overall tenor of the sales campaign was to maximize benefits and minimize risks.

Dan,

Interesting article. You shouldn't have hedged when choosing which side is right. Just look at the records of each side. Those against Bush have been on the wrong side of history for 100 years. They are on a losing streak of Red-Soxian proportions.

You claim that the economic situation of Bush and Reagan is similar.

That's not true.

Reagan at this point of his first presidency had seen a net job creation, reversing all the losses of the 81-82 recession. Not only was the economy growing but, much more importantly, so where the jobs.

Bush has seen no job creation at all. We have lost about 2.5 million jobs since he became president (no, I'm not blaiming him).

Given the HUGE political impact of job creation (the most politically relevant one now that inflation is not an issue) you missed something pretty big.

Nor did we have weekly deaths of US military in a war that was supposed to be over.