Because some of your claims simply don't make sense. He wrote:

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.
...
What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

First of all, yawn... Second, he's just making things up... someone get this man a newspaper, pronto.

Fortunately Carolyn O'Hara at FP Passport blog has pulled out a seat for Bill. Let's be quite so he can absorb what he has obviously (intentionally?) missed.

It's fine and fair to debate Bush's legacy, and he's surely done a few good things over the past six years. And Bill Kristol is certainly entitled to his own opinion; if he think Bush has been boffo, then more power to him. But Kristol is certainly not entitled to his own facts.

Go to the above link to see the factual counter points to Kristol's delusion that there has been less terrorism since 9/11. Heck, you don't even have to read. There is a simple graphic that proves her point nicely.