There are many reasons to be unhappy with George Bush's handling of things. One cannot help notice that he makes mistakes at times. Sometimes I "know" things he does are mistakes at the time. Sometimes, I notice those who had no opinion before or during said decision, now given the wisdom of hindsight, are unreleting and unsparing in their criticism. Despite the fact they themselves were simply clueless at the time, on the issue.

One might assert Bush went into Iraq without a clear plan on rebuilding the country. Oh, I think he had a plan. I just think it didn't match up with the reality which emerged later. I think Bush counted on a little more support from Iraqis, and a little less resistence. A bit longer period of gratefulness, and a bit less whining from guys like Salam Pax and certain members of the Iraqi Olympic Team. A bit more oil money available to help out, a bit less terrorism. A bit more cooperation from the would-be leaders, and a bit less of putting their own needs ahead of those of Iraq.

So it might fair to assert Bush was, in fact, wrong about what it took to rebuild the country. Further, since then, there have been other things I disagreed with:

Initially, the US carried out a policy of "de-Baathification". I liked this policy greatly, though it was slower and more painful to implement. But the defenders of realpolitik -- including the UK -- favored a different policy: That of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Eventually we bowed to our allies. That has worked out to be a mistake, I think, given what it has produced in the Sunni triangle -- an area which our appointed leaders actually harbor and give succor to the nascent enemies of the new government we are trying to build.

Duh.

I could also point to our failure to crush Al Sadr as a mistake.

Liberals are quick to point this out: Bush is messing up Iraq!

Really? I don't remember hearing your opinions on these issues at the time they were decided. I felt these things were wrong then. Where were you? Glad you became so wise after the fact. Care to help us with the next major policy decision? Any hints on what to do about Iran?

And therein lies the rub: Liberals think Bush has made mistakes. That's understandable. Though the fat lady hasn't sung, and we can't explore alternate realities to see how other ideas would have worked out, I share some of the same opinions.

But how does this make me support Kerry ahead of Bush? Or how does it make me support policies typically supported by liberals instead of conservative ones?

Take Al Sadr. The wise thing to do (how I loathe to talk of such) would be to arrest him or make him dead. And the same for his supporters. (Sadly, probably more the latter.)

Is Kerry a man who will readily so such? Indeed, it seems the groups he favors -- the UN, etc. -- are much more into "Be nice! Try to talk things out!" He would undoubted have joined the inevitable choruse which would have spoken, upbraiding Bush for killing or arresting a cleric.

So though I can say that I felt this was a blunder on our part, it seems to me from all available evidence that Kerry would have bungled it just as badly, if not even worse.

Consider also de-Baathification. Though I'm deeply grateful for the UK's partnership, I must point out it was their political sensibilities, and a desire to restore stability as fast as possible by any means necessary, which led to such a policy.

Where would Kerry be on this one? Good heavens, he's be handing the thing, lock, stock, and barrel to the UN, who would then have done the same thing, if not even more so (perhaps not even excluding some characters we would have taken exception to).

So again, I consider this a mistake, but one Kerry would have mirrored or exacerbated.

Finally, to kibbitz about another hand in play: What of Iran? Well at least we've had some clarity from Kerry here: Edwards proposes we give them the atomic fuel they are seeking and ask them, very nicely to play nice-nice with it. (This, in my opinion, is even more colossally stupid than Carter's moves in North Korea -- and we saw how well that worked out. At least Carter didn't hand them the plutonium!)

So this is my problem with nearly all libreral criticisms I hear of Bush. Many of them I consider valid. None of them lead me into Kerry's arms.

It's as though we complain about the job our electrician has done, and then recommend we search among the Amish for a suitable replacement for him.

Anyway, all this blather is just an attempt to set the mood for a very nice bit of writing done by Varifrank about Bush's lack of an exit plan. Does Bush have an exit plan? Not one I can see. Seems mostly to be to hold out, do the best, and hope for the best.

Of course, where's Kerry? He doesn't even seem to have a clear notion as to whether we'd "hold on" or "pull out"! At least Bush is clear that we're staying in. Is that the right plan? I don't know -- I suspect it's much better than a pullout. But it's still more of a plan than Kerry is offering. And when Kerry has sounded clear for a few consecutive moments, it seems to have been to put the UN in charge of things and bugger out as fast as humanly possible.

Sure, that's convenient for us in the short term, but what of the long term? What of the Iraqis? What if Iraq ultimately reverts to terror sponsorship and allies with Iran? Well, liberals, what are your answers here?

In being planless, it would seem that Kerry is following a long tradition, according to Varifrank. I'd quote it, but the whole thing is quoteworthy, so you might as just read it all there, please.

Did GW Bush make mistakes? Yes. But, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't judge Presidents in a vacuum, or against some vague perfect state ("I expect to see Iraqis holding hands, singing, and trading flowers and hugs!") which I then apply to presidents of one party but not the other.

We're still in Korea. The war never ended. We fled Vietnam and millions upon millions were killed for it. Those who advocated (liberal protestors like Kerry) and enabled (Nixon) such an exit bear some responsibility. We're still in Bosnia, even. Exit plans? When did these have exit plans? Yet all of these were by Democrats.

As I said, there are things we could say against George Bush. But in the light of history, they're no less true of Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton. I will take the complaints of liberal critics seriously on the day I hear them excoriate these presidents for their lack of exit-planning with the same shrill vitriol they level against the sitting president. Otherwise, it sounds like a hypocritical partisan application of a principle to which their alleged adherance is feigned, and not sincere.

And if lacking an exit plan is bad, then isn't lacking any kind of plan or direction at all worse? And if George Bush's plan (or lack of one) is worse, then what is yours? Forgive me, but I cannot help but ask such questions.

That is probably why I'll never be a liberal.