The "Hot War" (Iraq and Afghanistan): Iraq posed a real threat to the U.S., but not as great as that posed by nations like Iran and North Korea. Each of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought in a shameful manner, sacrificing American troops to unjustifiably restrictive "rules of engagement."
Grade: C

We're nit-picking here. A war with Iran, no particular causus belli, with a frothing at the mouth, probably WMD-equipped Iraq on one flank? Or North Korea, where the leader's a nutbag but the subject matter's got nothing to do with the overall objective — defeating the Islamists who've declared war on us? Where the hell did this guy go to war school?

The "Cold War" (Iran and North Korea): Two out of three members of the "axis of evil" have gone unpunished, despite the overwhelming terrorist and/or nuclear threats they pose. Even worse, the U.S. has appeased them, encouraging further aggression.
Grade: D-

The U.S. has remained diplomatically engaged with them, which isn't appeasement. "War is diplomacy by other means," remember? We certainly haven't "encouraged further aggression" by making Kimmie go into hiding. And we haven't "encouraged further aggression" by slapping the Syrians — publicly. Nor have we "encouraged further aggression" by announcing that the Iranian government's going to fall eventually and expressing our support for the people who'll eventually do it.

The "Breeding Grounds" (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan): These governments claim to be allies in the war against militant Islamic terrorism, but fail to suppress terrorists in their own midst. Bush has failed to issue an ultimatum demanding their cooperation.
Grade: C-

He's also failed to dig a canal across equatorial Africa. Issuing ultimata when you've lack the capability of enforcing them is a sign of a big mouth and a low IQ. Bush actually got Pakland's cooperation in the immediate wake of 9-11 by issuing an ultimatum — a fairly hair-raising ultimatum, if I recall correctly. But its eventual dismemberment — part to Afghanistan and/or Iran, part of India — is a far piece down the road. Who knows? They may even adopt a policy of sweet reason and make such a fate unnecessary. And attacking the Soddies at this time would reinforce the "attack on the entire Muslim world" meme. I think the ultimate goal is to have them withdraw from the field of battle without admitting they'd been there, to lick their wounds for the next hundred years or so. I also think Bush has a chance of pulling this off, since AQ has managed to poop in the punchbowl with the Riyadh bombings and yesterday announced that everybody's apostate but them.

Israel and the Palestinians: The American "road map" for peace has forced Israel to negotiate with Palestinian terrorists, requiring Israel to abdicate its right to self-defense. This policy is self-defeating for America, since Israel is a natural ally in the war against militant Islam.
Grade: F

The road map represented Bush's equivalent to Clinton's Camp David offer to Yasser — that Yasser later claimed to wish he'd taken (Israel was busy flattening Ramallah at the time). It was put together in concert with all the usual suspects who would have shot down or disregarded the legitimacy of a purely American proposal — Russia, the EU, and the UN, plus with input from the Arab states. It was handed to the Paleos on a silver platter, and they tore it up, jumped up and down on it, and then pooped on it. Hamas and IJ were the perps and Israel is now in the process of trying to knock off the entire politburo of Hamas — Shanab's dead, Rantissi was a "just missed," Sheikh Yassin had his britches dusted, and today they barely missed Zahar, knocking off one of his kids in the process. Hamas only has five people in its politburo, and one's based in Lebanon, to coordinate with the Syrians and Hezbollah. White House objections to date have been either proforma or non-existent. So the road map had a result and it wasn't to cripple Israel.

Military Deployment and Readiness: Despite massive new defense spending, the Bush administration has failed to use its military power—especially the threat of its nuclear arsenal—in a way that minimizes risks to American troops, and maximizes the American ability to destroy the enemy.
Grade: C

Military action has to be proportionate. Waving nukes is Kim Jon Il's tactic. Our policy calls for use of nukes in response to the Bad Guys' use of WMD. From the Bad Guys' point of view, there's not an awful lot of difference between a nuke and a few tons of MOAB, but we're a civilized nation and we try not to take out entire counties to get a dozen turbans.

International Law and Diplomacy: While American policy is widely criticized as too "unilateral," in reality the Bush administration has demonstrated an undue, self-abasing deference to international opinion and the U.N.—resulting in pointless delays and setbacks in the war.
Grade: D+

Unlike the people who write this sort of manifesto, Bush has to worry about the U.S. and its position in the world. There is, in fact, more than one country in this world — you can check for yourself. Without a certain amount of "self-abasing deference" to other countries, the British would certainly have waved and said to have a nice time as we were engaging in operations all by our lonesome. So would the Australians, just like the Canadians for the most part did. The Spanish and Portuguese and the Italians are capable of sniffing just as disdainfully as the Frenchies and the Germans, but they didn't, because Bush and his team presented a case and they agreed with its premises.