Bush's Optimists Club

(In other words: Bush was talking about body counts, a notoriously suspect way of measuring success in an armed conflict -- particularly one where it can be hard to tell enemies from civilians.)

Writes Hennen: "The President was clearly enjoying the recent shift among some in the 'critic' category, like the piece in the NY Times this week by Michael O'Hanlon [and Kenneth Pollack]."

(See Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald on how O'Hanlon and Pollack were in fact longtime cheerleaders for the war and the surge.)

Hennen concludes: "I wish I could quote him exactly or play a recording of the conversation. Because the George W. Bush I met with in the Oval Office today is a very different person than the man you see in our media. He is a great President. We are very blessed that he is our Commander in Chief. History will judge him well."

Another attendee, Neal Boortz, writes: "Anybody who thinks that this president is, somehow, ignorant or stupid is either sadly misinformed or delusional. Let the left think this man is unintelligent at their peril."

Then, he adds: "Democrats are showing us with their every word and grimace that what is good news for our country, what is good news for the war against Islamic terror, what is god news for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what is good news for the cause of peace -- real peace -- and stability in the Middle East is bad news, really bad news, for Democrats. Many of these people with that "D" after their names would gladly sacrifice any semblance of victory in Iraq and against the scourge of Islamic fascism if it would mean maintaining and strengthening their hold on power in Washington."

Talkers.com has a group photo of the 10 hosts who met with Bush on Wednesday. Bush was joined by White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, political guru Karl Rove, Counselor Ed Gillispie and Press Secretary Tony Snow -- among others.

And Hennen notes: "We learned that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would follow us in a separate meeting with the President. They have earned that privilege with their incredible support for our military efforts in the global war on terror."

Some of the participants complained of getting criticized for participating in the interview.

Writes Boortz: "Now -- just so you know. When a reporter for the Washington Post, CNN or any of the big three broadcast networks is invited to spend some time in an off-the-record conversation with the president, that's all hunky dory. But when a conservative (I'm now sure they know I'm a libertarian) talk show host is invited to discuss issues with the president, we're simply there to get our talking points and marching orders."

Medved writes: "Meanwhile, some callers to my radio show sharply questioned the propriety of the White House meeting -- suggesting that it represented some illegitimate effort to manipulate the press. In less than a year, I've received three Presidential invitations and flown to Washington each time for the chance to see Mr. Bush. Can I claim to maintain my objectivity when the chief executive himself has worked to build this sort of comfortable and friendly relationship?

"And when, precisely, did I ever claim objectivity? . . .