Funny. I was talking to my old economics tutor the other day. He teaches at SOAS, one of the most radically anti-Bush insitutions in the Western world. Its student union is dominated by Muslim radicals.

Now this is a guy who wheres designer tee-shirts, and went into academia because he wasn't bothered that much about money.

Yet, surprisingly, we found ourselves in agreement about Bush. Bush was OK. Bush had a consistent approach to world affairs that was predictable. Vote for Bush and you knew what you were voting for, for better or worse.

Can you say that about any of the current presidential candidates?

Consistency

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

NOTE: There is no inconsistency in these statements...

Alright, put it like this.

For 10 years we had Tony Blair. Everyone came to know him, many to loathe him.

Yet we knew him. Blair could be relied on to be unflinchingly pro-US. Domestic policy would always consist of hundreds of sneaky, "stealth" taxes that would be spent on healthcare and education. He'd talk a good game on Europe without actually assisting integration. He'd flirt with becoming a Catholic. He'd manipulate the media.

Now we have Gordon Brown. No one knows what he stands for, or could describe his policy position. And he's already more hated than Blair after three months in charge than Blair was after a decade...Hillary, be warned.

"...there are known unknowns..." a demented but delightfully acerbic old sage once proclaimed...

I think whoever gets to the American presidency is usually a fairly predictable quantity. And I don't think Bush is quite the idiot/antichrist many say he is; in fact, I'd agree he is quite consistent and that this consistency is, in fact, a good thing. My take on him is that he's a very good executive, but a very poor leader--if that makes any sense.

But I will say this, GreenwichJ, as far as predictability: When Bush ran for president he was adamant about "no nation- building." We could not, and would not have predicted his cabinet had Iraq in the crosshairs--he simply would never have been elected had we known. Now you might say, we couldn't have known about Sept.11--but then you'd open up the whole "Iraq had nothing to do with it" can of truth worms.

"Now this is a guy who wheres designer tee-shirts"

You've got to be kidding...

Well, Clinton said he'd ""focus like a laser beam on the economy". But he rapidly switched attention to Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, and Northern Ireland, with mixed results.

Unfortunately for the US, you have ended up as the world's sole policeman at the precise moment it became clear that much of the my country' s "nation building" of the last century was not up to scratch. And at a moment when the economy has become globally integrated, meaning that a country misdrawn on the map in 1922 could cause a world recession 100 years later.

GreenwichJ:

Well, Clinton said he'd ""focus like a laser beam on the economy". But he rapidly switched attention to Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, and Northern Ireland, with mixed results.

Define "mixed results". Bosnia is in good shape, Iraq didn't have the weapons and was contained, and Northern Ireland is in much better shape. Somalia went rather poorly, but overall Clinton's record is strong. Not to mention the economic growth of the 90s. All this while dealing with the Monica and Whitewater BS. You could put a little blame on him for not preventing the ensuing market crunch.

Compare to Bush:
Opportunity to transform Afghanistan - on its way to failing
Iraq - was wrong (or lying) about purpose, totally FUBAR
Denying global warming
Katrina
Defacing the constitution in any number of ways
Destroyed almost all of our international soft power (no one trusts us or believes in us as a world leader)

And to the previous poster, how is Bush a good administrator? The one thing I think he's done well has been going after terrorist funding sources. That plus the initial invasion of Afganistan (good move) is IMO the reason we haven't had a major attack. So yeah, good job on that Bush, except any half-wit would have done those things.

A harsher man might note that al-Qaida rose to prominence under Clinton's watch, and that Iraq's powerkeg of internal hatreds was not going to disappear simply by leaving Saddam to rot in his palaces. That said, Clinton tried to do a good thing in Somalia, and his intervention in Ulster was an unqualified success.

I disagree that the invasion of Afghanistan was a good move. It was an inevitable one after 9/11, but it was done in haste. Any kind of deal with the Taleban would have been better than trying to rebuild a country that has been bombed back to the stone age several times, and has neither the resources nor the national integrity to regenerate. I say all this with 20:20 hindsight, of course, but i think we've got a much better chance of creating a prosperous, stable Iraq than pulling off the same feat in Afghanistan.

GreenwichJ:

Well, Clinton said he'd ""focus like a laser beam on the economy". But he rapidly switched attention to Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, and Northern Ireland, with mixed results.

Democrats are required to say stuff like that about the economy to stir the loins of their base--it was the big issue of the early 90s. WJC got pretty lucky when his VP invented the internets and the economy took off.

That was a joke, folks.

Fair enough Greenwich; you're right about the moment in history. But one big reason I call Bush's presidency a failure of leadership is his inability to convince on this point--partly due to his maddening inarticulateness, partly how easily dominated he is by the more arrogant personalities in his cabinet. I often harp on what might have been had he Blair's gift for eloquence. I doubt many people's positions would change radically, but I do think the debate would be less emotional and more foreign policy-oriented.

tg12: When I say Bush is a good administrator, I mean it as a matter of personal opinion and style. We could talk all day about the flaws of Bush and Reagan, but I prefer their "hands off" management style to the micromanagement of Carter or the endless deliberations of policy wonk Clinton. Clinton is a formidable intellect and a good leader (as opposed to Bush) but I also a agree with the "Hamlet" rap his critics give him. Make up your mind unambiguously, and make it happen.

GreenwichJ, surely if you think a deal could have been made with the Taliban, must Saddam have been so hard to reach accomodation with? I think Afghanistan was tactically (if not strategically) ideal: special forces drawing, then picking off terrorists/Islamic militants wherever they may be.

GreenwichJ

I'm very interested in hearing your UK opinions, but I must correct you on a couple of points about Clinton:

Actually Somalia was a gift bestowed by HW Bush in December 1992, a few weeks after Clinton was elected (but not yet in office). I would agree that both HW and Clinton wanted to help there.

As to the meltdown of Yugoslavia (not just Bosnia), this was a colossal disaster in the middle of Europe. It began in 1991 at a time when the US was just finished with the "Gulf War" and HW Bush, heading into an election, probably didnt want to stir the electoral pot, fearing a Balkan vietnam-style "quagmire". They were also completely worried about Yeltzin and the situation in Russia. For these and other reasons, little was done diplomatically by the US (think April Glasby...)

Anyway, by the time Clinton gained office (1993) the Balkans had really slid into serious chaos, and even many republicans wanted Clinton to do something there; but the new republican majority overall didnt want Clinton to have credit. There were many who thought the election had been thrown by Ross Perot, and that HW was robbed of election victory. (remember the comments "he's not my commander in chief...").

So he was alternately being encouraged to act, and being beaten up for things like "dont-ask-don't-tell" and "blackhawk down" (arguably not exactly his fault). Also, there was that horrible Monica-business engineered by the worst of the partisans. So Clinton was unable to do much of anything to help there in his first years, and so the Dayton Accord and NATO mobilizations came rather late.

Things are not perfect in the Balkans, but -
In any case, since 1993, you could probably count US soldier casualties in the Balkans on one hand (journalist casualties are another story). And I believe now it's mostly EU soldiers working there. On the other hand, Iraq has become something of a real quagmire for the US.