"But it’s not Bush, some argue. It’s his policies. But, again, the early objections now seem somewhat misplaced. Yes, he opted out of Kyoto. But Clinton never opted in. And the Senate under Clinton had voted 95 - 0 not to consider it. So why isn’t Clinton tarred with the anti-Kyoto brush? The ABM treaty? Even the Russians went along in the end. Israel? Again, Bush inherited a collapsed policy, after Arafat walked away from Barak’s historically generous offer at Camp David. And Bush tried hard to force the road-map last year. But Arafat again balked and the Palestinians won’t or can’t replace him with anyone else. Trade? There the critics are on firm ground. The steel tariffs are indefensible. Bush is worse than Clinton in this respect. But have you checked up on the Democrats lately? The protectionism Bush’s opponents are supporting make this president look good.

Afghanistan? We have just seen a new constitution unveiled which both embraces Islam and protects religious minorities and women. If it weren’t for Bush, the Taliban would still be in power. Iraq? One of the worst tyrants in history has been toppled, 300,000 mass graves discovered, the marshlands of Southern Iraq are coming back to life, the Kurds and Shia can plan democratic futures, and Bush’s policy is still declared a disaster because a few thousand remnants of the old regime, combined with other regional terrorists, are still fighting! The notion that this policy has already failed relies on so raising the bar of success that only a miracle would pass muster. Come back in five years - the only reasonable time period by which to judge Iraq’s reconstruction - and we’ll talk. Meanwhile, some $20 billion of aid money is coming from American pockets to rebuild a country devastated by totalitarianism. And the architect of this astonishing act of humanitarianism is compared to Hitler in the streets of London. It makes no sense. None."