"There are legitimate, even powerful arguments, to be made against the Bush administration's foreign policy. But those arguments are complicated, hard to explain, and, in the end, not all that sensational"

In the estimated declaration, Tucker Carlson suggests that there are valid and engaging criticisms to be made regarding the foreign policy carried out under the administration of President George W. Bush. Nevertheless, he also appears to imply that articulating these criticisms is an intricate task, and even when successfully communicated, they may not resonate with the type of sensationalism that captures prevalent public attention.

To start with, Carlson acknowledges that Bush's foreign policy choices, presumably consisting of interventions in the Middle East such as the Iraq War, were questionable and within reproach. By using the term "genuine," he affirms that criticisms of these policies are grounded in sound thinking and benefit severe consideration. This choice of phrasing shows that the reviews are not simply partisan attacks or unfounded claims but are supported by substantive arguments.

Nevertheless, Carlson describes those arguments as "complicated" and "difficult to explain." This suggests that the concerns at hand involve complex geopolitical, ethical, or strategic considerations that do not provide themselves quickly to simple narratives. In a media landscape that frequently prefers brevity and clearness, these nuanced arguments might have a hard time to gain traction. The complexity may lie in comparing short-term and long-term effects, thinking about international law, or weighing moral imperatives versus practical requirements.

Lastly, Carlson notes that these criticisms eventually may not be "all that astonishing." The term "mind-blowing" normally describes something that provokes public interest or excitement, typically through remarkable or shocking methods. Hence, Carlson might be pointing out a detach between the substantive significance of the reviews and the general public's or media's tendency to prioritize stories that are mentally or aesthetically gripping.

In essence, Carlson's quote highlights a tension between the depth of political discourse needed to review Bush's diplomacy meaningfully and the typically superficial attention such problems receive in public arguments dominated by marvelous appeal.