When President Bush nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to run the CIA, the press focused on disapproving Democrats and even some Republicans who were dubious about confirmation.

 

A month later, when the Senate confirmed Hayden by a 78-15 vote, the story was given much less emphasis in the media, which had moved on to other stories critical of the Bush administration.

 

Similarly, when Bush nominated one of his aides, Brett Kavanaugh, to the federal judiciary, the press was filled with reports about Democrats threatening a filibuster because Kavanaugh once worked for special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in the case against President Clinton.

 

Last week, there was much less media coverage of a Rose Garden ceremony in which Bush presided over the swearing-in of Kavanaugh, who had been confirmed by a 57-36 vote.

 

Bush has quietly been racking up small victories like these that seem at odds with the media?s conventional wisdom of a presidency on the skids.

 

In addition to success with his nominations, Bush also is presiding over a booming economy and is even scoring some foreign policy advances, although Iraq remains bloody.

 

?In today?s political climate, daily headlines and fast-moving events make it easy to lose the forest for the trees,? Bush counselor Dan Bartlett wrote in a memo this week. ?But there is a clear tide of positive developments that reflect the president?s ability to get things done.?

 

Bartlett?s memo was dismissed as ?happy talk? by Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News. And White House correspondent Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers noted that Barlett ?found reason for optimism in Iraq ... on a day when gunmen rounded up 56 people at a Baghdad bus stop.?

 

Yet the White House remains convinced it is not getting a fair shake from the mainstream media.

 

?We hear a great deal about the problems we face,? Bush aide Peter Wehner wrote in an op-ed published Monday by the Washington Post. ?We hear hardly anything about encouraging developments.

 

?Off-key as it may sound in the current environment, a strong case can be made that in a number of areas there are positive trends and considerable progress,? he added.

 

Bartlett acknowledged that press reports of U.S. Marines killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq, ?are unsettling for the American people.?

 

He and other aides conceded that Bush still faces myriad

 

vexing problems, ranging from high gasoline prices to the deluge of illegal immigration.

 

These realities and their attendant negative press coverage have made Bush aides almost apologetic when they point out good news.

 

?President Bush?s leadership is achieving a steady flow of results that do not always dominate the day?s headlines on their own but that together represent real progress for the American people,? Bartlett said.

http://www.examiner.com/a-128975~President..._attention.html

Calling it a "victory" just because Congress didn't outright reject an appointment... that's a bit of a stretch.

 

Also these are all Bush aides quoted here, I mean what else would they say?

 

I'm sure Clinton aides were probably trying to highlight the positives in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal too. "Hey stop focusing on those bad issues, look over here!"

Getting Hayden nominated was hardly a challenge, especially when you control Congress.

if that is his best "victories" of his presidency then that shows how poor of a job he has done.

 

when you control the house and a majority in the senate it shouldnt be a victory.

 

How low has this country sunk

when you control the house and a majority in the senate it shouldnt be a victory.

 

Well, if you look at his campaign promises, and the platform he ran on, and then see what he accomplished, it looks worse.

 

Reduce Government Spending: Has actually increased it by a significant amount.

 

Social Security Reform: Failed.

 

Gay Marriage Amendment: Failed/Failing.

 

War on Terror: Not going so well.

 

Iraq: Getting worse by the day.

 

Immigration Reform/Guest Worker Program: (which he brought up only recently): Stalled in the House.

 

I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but can anyone honestly say that he could have done a worse job this term than Dubya? I honestly hope not.

if that is his best "victories" of his presidency then that shows how poor of a job he has done.

 

when you control the house and a majority in the senate it shouldnt be a victory.

 

How low has this country sunk

 

 

 

War on terror is a victory! We got Saddam, his sons, Bin Ladin's right hand man....once we get Bin Ladin, Bush's approval rating will change very fast!

 

 

when you control the house and a majority in the senate it shouldnt be a victory.

 

Well, if you look at his campaign promises, and the platform he ran on, and then see what he accomplished, it looks worse.

 

Reduce Government Spending: Has actually increased it by a significant amount.

 

Social Security Reform: Failed.

 

Gay Marriage Amendment: Failed/Failing.

 

War on Terror: Not going so well.

 

Iraq: Getting worse by the day.

 

Immigration Reform/Guest Worker Program: (which he brought up only recently): Stalled in the House.

 

I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but can anyone honestly say that he could have done a worse job this term than Dubya? I honestly hope not.

 

War on terror is now a plus!

Bin Laden's right hand man is Ayman Al-Zawahiri, not Al-Zarqawi.

 

Trust me, Al-Zarqawi's death will have very little effect on the overall violence in the country. It's unfortunate, but I'm 100% sure that the violence will continue. Our mistakes at the beginning of Iraq have been haunting us for years now.

 

Those mistakes were A) Disbanding the entire Iraqi army, putting 300,000 people with guns out of work. B) Failing to seize/destroy the many weapons caches that were all over the country when we invaded. Most of these weapons have been used by the insurgency/resistance/terrorist movements in Iraq for three years now. It looks like most of the IED explosives came from there.

when you control the house and a majority in the senate it shouldnt be a victory.

 

Well, if you look at his campaign promises, and the platform he ran on, and then see what he accomplished, it looks worse.

 

Reduce Government Spending: Has actually increased it by a significant amount.

 

Social Security Reform: Failed.

 

Gay Marriage Amendment: Failed/Failing.

 

War on Terror: Not going so well.

 

Iraq: Getting worse by the day.

 

Immigration Reform/Guest Worker Program: (which he brought up only recently): Stalled in the House.

 

I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but can anyone honestly say that he could have done a worse job this term than Dubya? I honestly hope not.

 

Social Secuirity Reform is a qualified failure. Bush has gotten congressmen to talk about alternative solutions (other than buying time with payroll taxes), which is more than any other president has managed to do. This will get done, probably under the next President, but it'll be because of Bush pushing for a "permanent solution".

 

The immigration/guest worker thing was just weird. It's so against what most Republicans would want. He was always going to have a hard time selling that, since he needs bipartisan support. Unless he includes tough penalties for current illegals, it won't get enough support from Republicans, but if he does include them he loses the support of the Democrats.

 

War on Terror is debateable. There's no way to truly quantify how well its going (unless you want to just go by whether bin Laden has been captured/killed, which is a pretty bad measuring stick). We have pretty much captured/killed any notable al-Qaeda members except bin Laden though, and he's no longer mouthing off (heck, he basically asked both Europe and the US for peace).

 

I can honestly say that I think Kerry would have done worse. There's obviously no way to prove it since you'd be talking about what ifs, etc, but I believe it.

Al Qaeda's two most important officials (Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri) are still at large. No one knows where Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader) is. I think he's probably directing the Taliban remnants that are fighting our troops in that country right now.

 

I don't consider the 'War on Terror' a success until Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are brought to justice, or killed. Either way.

I don't consider the 'War on Terror' a success until Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are brought to justice, or killed. Either way.

 

Very short-sighted because that event would not mark the end of anything.

I don't consider the 'War on Terror' a success until Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are brought to justice, or killed. Either way.

 

Very short-sighted because that event would not mark the end of anything.

I disagree. Bin Laden is an important symbol to the worldwide Islamic terrorist movements. His loss would be a major blow.

 

Al-Zawahiri would almost certainly be an even bigger blow. He is the operational head of Al-Qaeda, and essentially runs the organization these days. His loss would rob Al-Qaeda of its' best leadership.

 

So far, the most important terrorist capture has been Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. He directly planned and financed 9/11, and was involved in several of Al-Qaeda's other big operations. If we were to capture Al-Zawahiri, he would give us a veritable treasure trove of terrorist information, possibly enough to take down the majority of the organization. Even killing him would badly cripple Al-Qaeda.

I don't consider the 'War on Terror' a success until Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are brought to justice, or killed. Either way.

 

Very short-sighted because that event would not mark the end of anything.

I disagree. Bin Laden is an important symbol to the worldwide Islamic terrorist movements. His loss would be a major blow.

 

Al-Zawahiri would almost certainly be an even bigger blow. He is the operational head of Al-Qaeda, and essentially runs the organization these days. His loss would rob Al-Qaeda of its' best leadership.

 

So far, the most important terrorist capture has been Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. He directly planned and financed 9/11, and was involved in several of Al-Qaeda's other big operations. If we were to capture Al-Zawahiri, he would give us a veritable treasure trove of terrorist information, possibly enough to take down the majority of the organization. Even killing him would badly cripple Al-Qaeda.

 

Killing Bin Laden only makes him a martyr

Yeah, I suppose he's doing some stuff right. Not sure if what's quoted is exactly stuff to be triumphed, but no one is all bad.

 

Then again I'm sure if I looked hard I could find good in even the admnisitration of presidents like John Adams.

Trust me, Al-Zarqawi's death will have very little effect on the overall violence in the country.

 

:lol :lol :lol :lol

It's going to put a dent in Al Qaeda's operations in the country. How the hell does that not have an affect?

 

Obviously you're still going to have the usual Sunni/Shi'a BS with a car bomb mixed in fairly often.