Uh, oh - politics. Here's my problem with this predictive summary: Choosing Iraq meant lost opportunities in Afghanistan and, even, Pakistan. Worse, it was an

Uh, oh - politics. Here's my problem with this predictive summary: Choosing Iraq meant lost opportunities in Afghanistan and, even, Pakistan. Worse, it was an on-going, five-year, choice even after the initial assessments (WMDs and troops required) were proven wildly wrong. The surge, for Bush, was a last resort, when it should have been first, second, or even third. It's not that folks opposed the surge. They just thought it was two or three years too late. Then there were the choices to build a huge, new and repetitive bureaucracy (DHS), to give out massive tax cuts in a time of "war" without commensurate sacrifices from the American people (e.g., gas tax), and to belittle whatever moral and legal superiority our society is supposed to offer by torturing people. The choices for the economy were made in response to catastrophe not as it became increasing clear something was wrong. So the bailout packages end up being far bigger than if the problem had been addressed with true leadership. See, that's my problem with Bush. He just wasn't a democratic leader in any sense of the those terms. There was no effort to reconcile differing opinions, foment and shape debates, and arrive at conclusions that we could get behind. It was decisions (from the gut) first and rationalization after the fact with a brow-beaten, and slim, majority in Congress merely signing purchase orders. Four more days...