And he's let the media turn one of those wins into an effective loss that virtually ties our hand from launching a further war if needed. He's let the media kick his ass daily and commit multiple acts of treason without being held to any accountability. So I think not.
Reagan caught hell from the media yet managed to effectively communicate and fight back when necessary. Sorry, but ultimately this administration will be considered mediocre. President Bush in many ways has the vision of Reagan and Lincoln, but all too often the effectiveness of Carter. Good intentions are not enough.
A shame this is 2006 instead of 2009. We need a strong and effective leader now, a Churchill. We need a Giuliani, because as Steyn points out, war is ultimately about the will of nations, not simply technical superiority. How many years has the media been allowed to redefine reality, while the admin's response was deer-in-the-headlight-eyed Scott McClellen? Yes, Tony Snow is a vast improvement, but how many years too late?
One can arguing that all this public handwringing about what in actuality is an amazingly low loss of civilian life in the current Israeli war is simply diplomatic posturing and 'playing the game', but it conveys weakness. The President's poll numbers are down not so much because of individual policies but because many have questions as to the level of his admin's competence and effectivenes. And spare me the usual apologists' claims whenever they get in a corner that somehow someday we'll miraculously discover that it was all a big 'rope-a-dope'.
Thank goodness President Bush sees the parallel to the 1930's, and that idiots like Straw are Chamberlain reincarnated. (Yes, the "Turn every corner of Islam into nuclear glass" crowd are also just as idiotic.) But he's also made mistakes, and the current response and approach is conflicting and conveys weakness, while allowing the media to define perceptions and parameters.
Reagan made huge blunders, in the midst of otherwise brilliance.
Today you hold him up way above W and say he's great but W is mediocre.
Reagan held the nation with his rhetoric. Bush lets events and the rhetoric of others unfold just enough to show the hands, lay the cards on the table. That includes the media's, then he points to what we have seen and heard with our own eyes and does his best to place it in proper perspective and historical context.
The glass is more than half full, not half empty or more than half empty. Is it all just right? Nope.
Neither was it with Reagan.
I agree that his media campaign has been less than effective, in particular letting McClellan keep his job for more than a week. He was useless. But it is the President who has given many great speechees, starting in 2001 after 9-11 and continuing up to the this day. His speeches get next to no coverage in the media, of course.
But as hard as the MSM tries, it does not alter GWB. No matter how the democrats whine, it does not matter. Afgahnistan has been a great success, all things considered, and the re-invogorated Taliban has been gettin slaughtered in the the South.
Bush went to war with Saddam despite the UN, despite the majority of european countries, and despite Russia and China.
Bush pulled us out of the Russia ABM treaty despite near universal condemnation.
Bush rejected Kyoto and the International Criminal Court, despite world opinion.
Bush has given cover for Israel's war against Hezbollah, that without it, it could never do what it is doing. His plans for a ceasefire are contingent upon the dismantling of Hezbollah, which he knows will never be accepted by most of the parties involved, so more cover is being given to Israel in the guise of a "lasting peace".
Bush gave the green light to bomb Zarq despite "civilian" casualties, just as he allowed the hellfire missile in Pakistan to take out a gatheing of Al Qaeda types, despite the wimmin & chillen. The battle for Falluja, after first letting the sunni politicians delay it, was simply remarkable and Falluja today is not the inusrgent hotbed it was. We will crush the sectarian militias in Baghdad and environs soon.
So yes, many mistakes. But despite that, a spine of steel.