Great quote from yesterday's Charley Reese column.

[Brotherjohn]

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030929/index.php
The column is called "Road to Darkness" and discusses the colonial history of Iraq, in that the British "tried occupation and found it was too bloody and costly, so they set up a puppet government. The Iraqis overthrew it."

But the great quote, following Reese's pointing out how it's unfortunate that "Bush is not a reader", is this:
"The question is how many billions of dollars and how many American lives we want to spend teaching George Bush a lesson he should have learned at the library."

I was thinking just the same thing when I read the Smithsonian article on the history of Iraq a few months ago. I really hate to admit that I love reading Charley Reese's column lately. I know he's a social conservative who drives me wacko sometimes when he writes on those issues, and I know he's mostly anti-Bush on Iraq because he's more-or-less an isolationist (like Buchanan).

But he just nails the problems with Iraq time and time again. And here, he has nailed the problem with the entire Bush presidency.

[Brucey]

1. Great quote, but

loss of lives didn't seem to bother the majority; it was only when Chimpy asked for $87bn that his popularity dropped to 50%. Most Americans care about their own pocketbooks, and that's about it.

[Brotherjohn]

2. I disagree. Bush's popularity had been steadily declining...

...over the past several months. It's not as though it was hovering at 80% ever since Iraq, and then suddenly dropped to 50% the day after his $87B speech.

The decline has been VERY steady and sure. Many factors, including unemployment, the deficit, the WMD deceptions, and others, have contributed. Among the main reasons for this decline, I believe (and most analysts have been saying), is the quagmire that Iraq has become, and the loss of American lives there.

[pocoloco]

3. His archives make for some good reading also.

He really blasted * a while back and promptly had his link dropped from Drudge!

[SWPAdem]

4. It is a sad time, indeed

when you find yourself agreeing with Charley Reese, but he has been hell on Bush, for at least the last year. Did anyone read his column on health care? He advocated for government-funded universal health care. Wonder what he's been smoking?

[shrike]

5. I was just starting to enjoy Charley when my local paper dropped him

And replaced him with ... Michelle Malkin!

Yes, we do live in strange times. But I have to give Reese credit -- he's sticking to his principles, even though I find some of them wrongheaded. And I have to respect a person willing to admit he was wrong, in print. A few months ago he wrote that he'd made a mistake voting for Bush, and then he'd rather have Clinton as president than the Boy Blunder.

[paulk]

6. these are strange times

When some of the best, most hard hitting, and, dare I say, vicious attacks on the Bush administration are coming from the right. Charly Reese, Georgie Ann Geyer, even Pat Buchanan - have all done an excellent job in the last few years pointing out Bush's failed policies.

We take our allies where we can find them, I guess.

[DemoVet]

7. Charley Reese has made it onto my list

of people I'd like to drink a few beers with. We'd probably end up arquing but at least it would be an intelligent argument, and we'd probably both end up learning something from it. You know, the way it's supposed to be.