That was a nasty, uncalled for snark at Sidney Blumenthal at the end of Noah's column.

Reason 1: Defending President Clinton during the impeachment fiasco is hardly the same as defending George W. Bush on every front. Clinton had a record of achievement--short hand version, peace and prosperity--to defend. Bush has a record of disasters. Noah's engaging in a species of David Broder Georgetown consensus tongue-wagging--Clinton is by definition a tainted rube, so anyone defending him is a rascal.

Reason 2: If you bother reading Blumenthal in The Guardian or on Salon, he's usually right. And he's engaged in journalism, which means he's actually talked to people who are knowledgeable. When was the last time Fred Barnes practiced anything resembling journalism?

Reason 3: Anyone who thinks Barnes' wooden prose bears any comparison to Blumenthal's rapier thrusts needs to go back to English 101.

I suppose the rap on Blumenthal is that he is exceptionally bright and he never hesitates to remind people of it. Would that Fred Barnes had that problem. He's just well connected.

"fair and balanced." Though they don't practice it, FOX has berainwashed the shit out of everyone else . We have to criticize mother Theresa after saying something bad about Ken Lay to show we aren't biased.

I am part of that 35%. (But I'm jumping ship if that rotten amnesty plan passes Congress, we could see Bush down in the teens after that.) On Iraq, failing and being wrong are two seperate things. The fact that his policy failed will most likely be confirmed this fall when General Patraeus gives his report before Congress. But the idea of placing a pro-American bulwark in the center of the lands of Islam while encircling Iran was brillant. (Oil for blood? Well, people die for less here every day.) Honestly, I think Bush would back in the upper forties or higher if he wasn't so bent on creating his beloved North American Union.

For Bush's many failures, his enduring legacy of placing 2 conservative justices to the Supreme Court will not be forgotten.

If he hadn't screwed up and invaded Iraq the most pernicious political hack job Bush and his unAmerican followers have dealt America is the disaster he has placed our entire justice system in by appointing bad judges and that includes the two Supreme Court papists.

The justice department has become home to ideologues and legislation in the justice realm has really been skewed away from indiviual liberties and to a very pro business (and anti environment) policy.

The Democrats have done nothing to stop him.

Bill Clinton's biggest failure was to ignore the need to appoint good judges, he left many vacancies for his successor.

The reason why Clinton left so many vacancies in the court was because the GOP-controlled Congress refused to confirm his appointees.

Clinton's biggest failure was not bein agressive enough in getting bin Laden. Bush's biggest failure, well, everything Bush has done was a failure.

kilth:

IOn Iraq, failing and being wrong are two seperate things. .

No, Bush's scheme of occupying a nation of 24 million with an army of 150,000 was harebrained from the start. It required wishful thinking on the delusional level to believe that this would work.

kilth wrote: "But the idea of placing a pro-American bulwark in the center of the lands of Islam while encircling Iran was brillant."

Sure, it sounds brilliant. But which country in the center of the lands of Islam was ready to be a pro-American bulwark? It certainly wasn't Iraq, which was apparent even before the invasion, so doesn't that make the whole Iraq thing a bad idea from the start?

You say that Clinton had "a record of achievement--short hand version, peace and prosperity--to defend. Bush has a record of disasters."

So Clinton bears no responsibility for 9/11, then? All Bush's fault...

It's interesting to contemplate how Clinton would have handled the Bush era. Certainly he would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. But he wouldn't have had any more luck catching bin Laden, and you're a fool if you think he would have done.

I doubt Clinton would have declared a "war on terror". Which rather begs the question: what would he have done?

Saddam Hussein would still be luxuriating in Baghdad as thousands of his people starved to death (would Clinton have lifted the sanctions?). All the hatreds that prompt Iraqis to kill each other would still have been there, lurking beneath the surface. But why worry about those, right?

But I think by this point the great American public might have been getting a bit pissed off with Clinton's inactivity.Would he have been able to stop another al-Qaida attack on the US? I doubt Clinton would have set up Gitmo. How would he have got these people?

Bush is convinced that history will show him to have been a rather good president in what has been a very difficult time. I suspect he's absolutely right about that.

"I suppose the rap on Blumenthal is that he is exceptionally bright and he never hesitates to remind people of it. Would that Fred Barnes had that problem. He's just well connected."

Same as the rap on all Gore. How misguided can you be to think factuality has a place in journalism (or policy making for that matter)? If one can achieve a critical mass of ignorance in the press or in politics one never has to take responsibility for a mistake or misstep, however obvious it might have been with only a little reflection.

All these "Bushies" have been defined in terms of their service to and relationship with other Bushies. Loyalty is not that great a trait when it is stuck in a closed system.

The Defense Intelegency Agency questioned Sadam and he

thought we had a bunch of CIA spies in his government and so we knew he didn't have and WMDs and we had 120,000 troops there to join with him it taking out Iran. Shades of WW1. The halt leading the lame!

A "pro-American bulwark"? While declaring Iran part of an axis of evil, he went ahead and helped establish a pro-Iranian government in Iraq at the cost of a lot of American blood. Bush has played into the hands of the terrorists with this fantasy of a democracy in the Middle East. Our presence has created a recruiting boon for the terrorists, and that is the conclusion of our own intelligence services. In addition, we are providing training for terrorists along with target practice. It is hard to imagine how much worse he could have made this situation. Iraqis have loyalty to family and tribe, not to the idea of a nation of Iraq. When told the country was full of Sunnis and Shiites, Bush said "I thought they were all Muslims". Brilliant? Hardly.

I have license plates that say "BUSH NO." When I got them 2 years ago, I had an occassional wave and/or honk - usuallly from African Americans or someone with Massachuetts plates on the interstate. Now, I can barely drive home with the waving, honking, peace signs and an occassional blown kiss. I am so ahead of my time.

YES.. Clinton be

Clinton has NO respondibility for 9/11. HE didi not cause itor plan it. In fact ther is evidence the neocon planned and implemented the disaster to use it as an excuse to attack Iraq. Which they wanted President Clinton to do.

On top of all this Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11..

Why was the reporter who asked Guliani about tower 7 was arrested last week? Tell me what is going on?

You seem to have all the answers

since when is it amerikkkas business to remove every cruel dictator that starves his people? and if it is, theyve done a poor job of it all over the world