Do You Like the Odds?
"What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president. I like the odds."
These are the words of visiting Harvard Prof. William Kristol, editor of the Conservative Weekly Standard and chief of staff of former Vice President Dan Quayle, printed in the Washington Post three weeks ago.
Although this blog is aimed at legal research, I found the article rather amusing and entertaining in spite of it sober contents. Kristol asserts that Bush’s tenure as president is likely to be a successful one, and hails, among other things, the appointment to the Supreme Court of John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito, the narrowing of the huge budget deficit (that Bush himself created) and the lack of any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. While Kristol is right in the latter point, and Bush to some extent deserves credit for it, the question of with what means and losses this aim has been achieved remains unanswered. At the same time, Kristol concedes that the foreign policy issues remain a mixed bag - perhaps in light of his assumption that the resurgent of fighting in Afghanistan may have to be dealt with in the near future and that the war has gone reasonable well.
Anyway, read Kristol’s article for yourself on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709.html and see if you fancy the odds.
These are the words of visiting Harvard Prof. William Kristol, editor of the Conservative Weekly Standard and chief of staff of former Vice President Dan Quayle, printed in the Washington Post three weeks ago.
Although this blog is aimed at legal research, I found the article rather amusing and entertaining in spite of it sober contents. Kristol asserts that Bush’s tenure as president is likely to be a successful one, and hails, among other things, the appointment to the Supreme Court of John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito, the narrowing of the huge budget deficit (that Bush himself created) and the lack of any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. While Kristol is right in the latter point, and Bush to some extent deserves credit for it, the question of with what means and losses this aim has been achieved remains unanswered. At the same time, Kristol concedes that the foreign policy issues remain a mixed bag - perhaps in light of his assumption that the resurgent of fighting in Afghanistan may have to be dealt with in the near future and that the war has gone reasonable well.
Anyway, read Kristol’s article for yourself on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709.html and see if you fancy the odds.
Comments
Anyway, I think General Petraeus is using the best possible strategy given his resources, but he's in an impossible situation. I'm not sure sparking a Holy War between Sunni and Shiite is something any President should be proud of.
There is an interesting new documentary called "No End in Sight" which looks at the mistakes made immediately after the invasion. Critics love it, and it appears to rise above partisan muckracking, something William Kristol seems unable to do.