Rod Dreher at National Review's "The Corner" finds fault with Dubya the Wonderful here and here (while not letting the idiots Blanco or Nagin off the hook, as some of Matt Yglesias' readers (but not Yglesias himself, God bless him) seem to want to do (read the comments to see what I mean).
I have never had much confidence in Bush, as he always seemed - sort of hollow. He always seemed more like a mouthpiece used to spout off the right soundbites rather than an actual thinking individual with well-considered ideas. And, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, he has a fetish for loyalty (or maybe more properly, sycophancy) over competency, which is a trait that tends to lead organizations to become arrogant and stupid.
What irritated me more, however, was that so many commentators and pundits were unwilling to call Bush on this, and tried to make out every thing he did as an act of sheer brilliance (Hugh Hewitt claiming that Bush won the first presidential debate with Kerry springs to mind). It is refreshing to see someone on National Review (other than John Derbyshire) actually be willing to call Bush on one of his faults.
That is all.