Two brothers—twins, in fact—graduated from high school at the same time. Like all grads, the boys had decisions to make.

The chief decision for a grad is typically a career decision. Many twenty-somethings choose between going to college and going directly into the work force. And those were the choices for the two brothers.

Brother #1—we’ll call him Joe—pondered the dilemma. He could go to college, he thought, but he would be broke for about 5 years. Joe opted to enter the work force immediately, citing a higher immediate salary as his rationale.

Then, brother #2—we’ll call him Jack—pondered the same dilemma. Jack thought about the coming 5 years and how poor he would be; however, he also considered the statistics that almost guaranteed a higher salary over the long term.

Joe argued with Jack, proclaiming, “Going to college now will not give you anymore money anytime soon! So, why go?”

Such is the logic of Barack Obama and any other politician who opposes: American oil drilling on the continental shelf, Alaska, the Dakotas, and anywhere else; the expansion of nuclear power; drilling for oil shale; or clean coal technologies.

Drilling now, we are told, will not produce one drop of oil for 10 years, or 30 years according to one fool; therefore, we should not drill.

Going to college will not produce one drop of salary for 5 years; therefore, do not go to college.

This elementary logic, with a false proclamation, discounts several other factors, such as signals to markets and price stability. Still, it persists.

These slumping figures indicate Bush fatigue not just among liberals and moderates, but also among conservatives. George W. Bush was unfairly labeled as “conservative” by his liberal critics (who were out to get him from the first day), even though most conservatives held in 1999 and 2000 that he was moderate and not all that conservative (just look at some of his championed projects: No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, etc.). Still, his branding as a full-fledged conservative meant that his wrong-headed policies, like those grand liberal ideas just mentioned, were construed as wounds against conservatism.

Still, George W. Bush executed some conservative policies, however (such as tax policy), garnering vigorous defenses from conservatives for such actions. But Bush’s liberal critics continue to smear the president, prompting conservatives to defend him from the overreaches. As time passed, however, Bush’s moderate stances began to annoy conservatives and they began criticizing him on certain grounds while defending him on others. Why? Unfair criticisms served as setbacks for the Republican Party, the political vehicle for conservatism.

But now, many former Bush supporters are now tired of playing the game. They, too, have Bush fatigue, and many of them openly seek defeats of Bush policy. But not all setbacks for George W. Bush are good things.

Take, for example, a friend of mine. I have several friends who are lawyers (so, for those who know me best, it’s not who you think), but one of them—a fairly conservative fellow—has come to be a Bush critic suffering from severe Bush fatigue. The other day we discussed (or, rather, I listened, not wanting to debate my friend on the phone) current events and he described one development that was painted as a setback for the Bush Administration as a positive occurrence. He offered no legal explanation as to why the development was good for the country, but instead explained how it was an end to a Bush policy, that it would stop Bush and Cheney, and so on. I gathered from this conversation that my friend was happy precisely because the development was a setback for Bush.

And the development in question was the recent Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to illegal combatants in Bouedemine v. Bush.

My friend, and many others (liberal and conservative alike) feel that the president’s Guantanamo Bay policy has been an embarrassment to this country. I understand the sentiments, even though I disagree with many of their views. Bush’s critics set out from the first day to brand Guantanamo as a black eye for the country; thus, in the media, it has become a black eye for the country. But even now, conservatives suffering from Bush fatigue are willing to go along with criticisms of or campaigns against certain Bush policies just to stop the bleeding.

Today, the AP released a story about human rights group claim that the US has tortured its detainees, both in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. Even though the last line of the article states, “Most former detainees are out of reach,” a line that carries many ramifications, the group (Physicians for Human Rights) claims that torture is ongoing and common.

There are, however, flaws with the group’s charges. Most of what is described in the AP wire sounds like regurgitations of the old Abu Ghuraib affair. The physicians lament the abuse and prolonged damage brought forth on the detainees—11 in all, 7 from Iraq and 4 from Gitmo—all of whom were released “without criminal charges.” Likewise, the majority of the occurrences in question probably happened in the early days of the war, before scrutiny changed US policy. But what these folks forget is that the detainees are not boy scouts. They were detained fighting against US troops.

Criticisms like these and setbacks like Boumediene may have some validity. (We have held these detainees for long periods of time without formally bringing charges; however, we are at war and detainees are usually held for the duration of a war without charges and are often released in the middle of the war without “criminal charges.”) However, they may do more harm than good to the United States.

And that is precisely what liberal critics of conservatives suffering from Bush fatigue forget. Boumediene was a setback for Bush, which, for the sake of argument we will concede, was a “good thing” because it was a setback for Bush. But it is a good thing for the country?

For liberal Democrats, haranguing Bush on the Iraq War was good politics, but was it good for the United States of America? A combination of tactical and strategic errors, heavy criticism in the media and Congress, and a lack of resolve on the part of the Administration after the fact have developed a situation where the Iraq affair will probably be a strategic folly for this nation, even if, like in Vietnam, we “win the war on the ground.” Perception will be reality and Iraq will be a loss, and a loss is in this case would be a terrible setback for the campaign against radical Islamic terrorism.

In the case of Boumediene, stopping George W. Bush’s Gitmo facility (and others like it) would, in theory, help restore America’s reputation abroad. Thus, for many critics, the decision is a positive development. But is it good for the country? Granting habeas corpus rights for unlawful combatants is a huge swing away from standing legal precedent. How will it affect our counter-terror efforts in the future? Will any detainee be allowed to bring a suit in US courts for his freedom? How will that affect combat operations? Will the US lose intelligence due to a lack of interrogations? What happens if we are engaged in a force-on-force conflict of the traditional variety with another country? Will that nation’s POWs be allowed to sue in US courts? Why not? Terrorists who fight with no uniform and no nation were granted those rights.

The glee of the media, liberal Democrats, and conservative critics of George W. Bush will fade some day. In fact, it seems likely that they may regret their glee. There will be a Democrat president some day, and that president will probably face foreign policy crises, and when one those of crises is affected by the impending loss in Iraq, the Boumediene decision, or some other “setback” for Bush, there may be remorse. Until then, it’s whatever harms Bush, even if such an occurrence does severe damage to the United States of America as a whole. Folks who subscribe to this line of thinking should reevaluate their critical thinking skills.