re: simple answers
Thanks, Phil. I truly was looking for information, so I'm not inclined to argue about it. It's pretty much as I'd theorized about modern-day Republicans in general: "Bush is Lord" in public, no compromise and no doubts; but in private, there are reservations, and, it seems, Bush is on balance the best you can get. Maintaining solidarity is required for political purposes.
Well, one thing I could quibble about, if not actually argue about, is:
I believe that he has the only credible response to the civilization threat from Islamic terrorism.
Unfortunately, Bush's approach is the only approach anyone gets to talk about--you either love it or you're a terrorist-loving traitor. I haven't seen any serious discussion of alternatives, and as I found when I tried to raise the subject for discussion here, any attempt to discuss alternatives is shouted down with knee-jerk partisanship, like "oh yeah, I suppose you think Gore would've done better?". Yet again the Zone mirrors the outside world.
It genuinely worries me that the "war on terror" is being conducted without critical examination or dissenting voices, just groupthink in the name of patriotism. That's how you lose wars, or whatever it is we're engaged in vis a vis Islamic terrorism.
Which isn't to say that you're not correct in believing that Bush has the best response. But how do you define "best" when there's nothing to compare it to?