If Senators Clinton or Obama ever feel the need to inject a little excitement into one of their campaign speeches, all they have to do is slam President Bush. It’s a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. Though the audience reaction is infallibly predictable, it is always fascinating to watch them squeal with delight every time they are treated to another attack on the administration.

Alright already, we know. We know that the left despises everything about President Bush and his administration. We’ve known it for some time.

Today, when Democrats listen to their candidates, they might not understand all the ramifications of an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. But they know they hate Bush.

They may not know how Clinton or Obama would protect our country. But they know they hate Bush.

Considering that Clinton still has not released those records on her years as first lady, and Obama has zero foreign policy experience, even some Democrats are a little uncertain about their qualifications to lead the country. But one thing they all know for sure: they hate Bush.

Their resentment toward the president actually began right after the controversial election of 2000. Then after the invasion of Iraq, followed by relentless unsubstantiated allegations and government conspiracy theories planted by left wing extremists and nurtured by a liberal media, anti-war hysteria took hold, and the resentment grew to a seething hatred.

Blinded by that hatred, they seized on every controversial new policy by the administration to justify their scorn. When the Patriot Act was passed, they said Bush was abusing his authority. They called him a dictator. They pointed at Guantanamo Bay, claiming that he authorized the mistreatment of terrorist prisoners, and that because of it, our country had become an international pariah.

So say the Democrats.

But compare President Bush to his Democratic predecessor.

Following the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center, Bill Clinton treated the attack as a crime, and his justice department eventually convicted a few of the less significant players. While his level of response to subsequent attacks is debatable, it was undeniably ineffective, and terrorism against American interests continued to grow in frequency and ferocity.

With regard to Iraq, Clinton also fully understood that Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions and a menace to the international community. Yet he chose the safe path, opting to keep him “in his box,” political jargon for “pass the problem on to the next guy.”

So faced with the most devastating attack on American soil in history, President Bush knew that a different approach was needed to defeat terrorism. He didn’t waiver, didn’t put his finger in the wind, but instead launched an all-out war on terrorism, and put the world on notice: “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” He knew that as long as hostile states provided safe havens for international criminals, terrorism could never be defeated. Even then, everyone knew which side Iraq was on.

The whole country was behind the president during those days.

For seven years, the Bush Doctrine has helped keep our country safe, yet throughout most of that time his critics continued to condemn his actions. And because there have been no further attacks in this country, the issue of terrorism has taken a back seat to health care, global warming, and government hand-outs. Bush’s approach to the terrorist threat is now called unjustified and extreme, and he is labeled a fear-monger.

Of course, those obsessed with hatred can never allow it to be tainted with reason or objectivity; that could potentially throw their whole belief system into disarray. And the Bush-haters could never acknowledge that this president has had any success in protecting America, because they might then have to temper their contempt with a bit of gratitude.

But in the end, all of the seething hatred is inconsequential. One day, the emotion will fade away, the unsubstantiated allegations will be discarded, and history will judge the president and this war against terrorism based on the simple facts. History will say that George W. Bush took a determined stand against terrorism and terrorist regimes, and while resisting the prevailing political winds at home, he implemented the ancillary policies needed to keep America safe.

Yet there is a ray of hope for those who need to see the Bush Doctrine fail. If either of the two Democratic candidates is elected, he or she can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by rescinding the president’s terrorist surveillance programs and immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq. If that happens, we will watch the resulting chaos overseas, and brace ourselves for more terrorist attacks here.

And Democrats will somehow see yet another opportunity to blame Bush.