I think you meant to link to this.

Yes, thanks for the link correction.

Missed the biggest mistake.

Not appointing a military governor immediatly after the invasion with full reconstruction responsibility was the critical mistake by far. Dividing the reconstruction into the military (brilliantly executed) and the civilian side (total incompetance) was a disaster. A single individual should have been in charge with the biggest pair of red tape scissors in the world.

I still say silence on Iran was and is necessary and not a mistake.

The son has learned from the error of the father, who indicated that if the government of Saddam Hussein was knocked over in a coup, the new government would easily meet with the approval of the Americans. Iraqis wildly misinterpreted this as a call to go on a suicidal rampage, and stick America with 100% of the responsibility to make this lunacy work. It wasn't possible and had never been possible. The diplomacy wasn't there, nothing had been prepared. So there was abominable slaughter, and ever since, apparently to the end of time America has had to pay the moral bills for betraying Iraq.

The situation in Iran is similarly spring-loaded for disaster. The fantasy world of the people we are dealing with is such that others are responsible and others, especially infidels, are always and infinitely to blame. It is likely that on the least provocation or none, Iranians will do what they are inclined to do anyway, that is react against a government that frustrates them - and put all the responsibility for this asinine rebellion and its consequences on America. If George W. Bush even says anything sympathetic, the Mullahs will have all the proof they need the insurgency is an American plot.

Look at what is going on right now. Can you think of a more foolish time for Iranians to act? Now, just before a desperately close election against the Michael Moore candidate, with the whole war on terror effectively on the line - when could George W. Bush be less in a position to help the Iranians? They do what they want, suicidal fools, and America (and George W. Bush, guilty son of the guilty father) is in position to take the blame, more so with every encouraging word George W. Bush utters.

I'll quote Ron Silver: "The President is doing exactly the right thing."

GWB's biggest failure was his failure to rally the support of the American people in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. While his "just go shopping" advice may have been pragmatically correct it was politically wrong. There should have rallies, scrap drives, war bond sales, the full WWII mobilization of the public. Not that that necessarily would have actually been of any help. But it would have conveyed the message of shared sacrifice required to maintain support for the efforts ahead.

What eventually happened was the domestic political equivalent of Fallujah. Failing to rally the public gave his domestic political opposition a breathing space to gain strength and launch attacks.

And it put us in the position we're in right now. We're hamstrung until after the election.

Dave Schuler, I totally agree with that criticism.

The Bush administration, meaning first Bush himself, seemed to see the masses of ordinary people stirred by 11 September 2001 in a basically negative light. They were potentially dangerous anti-Muslim bigots and rioters, who had to be pacified and reminded often that Islam is the religion of peace. (RoP, TM) Ordinary people were not wanted for the war at all, and it was better for them to go shopping. They best showed their patriotism my being searched at airports (out of sheer political correctness, not for good reason) and by being generally treated (always the passive tense) as objects of suspicion. The war on terror was something best taken care of by small numbers of top professionals.

There was no identity on offer, for most people, of being someone who contributes to the war in a practical way. I've seen a few bloggers say more or less the same thing: I was too old or in some other way unqualified to join the armed forces, so I started blogging to create my own way to help.

Genuine enthusiasm for the right cause is a rare and precious commodity. Nourish it, give it action to feed on. Don't step on enthusiasm. Don't pacify, diminish and disaggregate your supporters. That's really lousy leadership, even anti-leadership.

This is still true. The patriotic blogs are still doing their best, trying to make the case that George W. Bush doesn't make effectively enough for himself, as in the first debate with John F. Kerry - and Dick Cheney can't even give people the right url to go to to get other making his case for him, he sent people to what was in effect a George Soros site, a weasel site, instead. These guys don't get it, and I specifically include Dick Cheney, saint of conservatives, in that.

This cedes the emotionally critical space where people organise around the war to others. It feeds every possible leftist cliche about the establishment and the war versus the people. This is just pathetic leadership or non-leadership, a top ten failure for sure.

Thanks for mentioning GWB's defusing of potential anti-Muslim violence, David Blue. That's the flipside of the failure I mentioned above. And I think it's probably the greatest triumph of his presidency.

I think it was possible to enlist the support of the people of the United States without inciting anti-Muslim violence. But for whatever reason that didn't happen.

I agree that was critical.

I think when you play the game fairly, George W. Bush doesn't look like a guy who has made a lot of stupid mistakes. Failing to rally the people was bad, but pre-empting any potential for anti-Muslim vigilanteism was critical. The two goals were in some tension, and he achieved the more important one fore sure, with overkill that sacrificed the lesser one. It would have been nice - OK, a lot more than nice - if an Iranian revolution could have succeeded, but the prospects for success were minimal and the potential for disaster was huge, so he leant way over in the direction of avoiding disaster. The biggest danger for the economy after 11 September 2001 would have been an economic crash following another hit like that, or a few more hits like that, which seemed inevitable at the time. The economy had to be stimulated. Well it was - lots and lots.

Overall, this looks like decisive and prudent leadership to me. Not refined, but one man can't have every virtue. On the whole, he has been determined, prudent, over-emphatic, stubbornly energetic, idealistic, and surprisingly radical and consistent in principle, as well as flexible and willing to learn from his many errors in practice. (As Napoleon Boneparte said: anyone who has made war without errors has not made war long.) By the historical standards of war-leaders, this guy is great, and I mean that word seriously. I put George W, Bush on the level of Harry Truman.