i think the article over steps its bounds a bit, but i agree with the overall sentiment: the knee-jerk insta-reaction to all things dubya is, and has been, ridiculous. he's done things wrong, but he is not the anti-christ. somewhere along the line, he slipped into being bad. maybe it was for a speech or maybe it was cuz letterman had good material that week; whatever. once he was there, there was nothing that could fix it. any slip up became the most embarrassing gaffe of all time. when, really, his historical significance other than opinion polls paints a different picture.
his definitive issues while in office include: 9/11, iraq, katrina, and the economic collapse.
i've said before, if iraq is a successful democracy in 25 or 50 years, that is an unparalleled accomplishment, and one that bush would no doubt receive (justly) credit for.
i think it's poor form to put pre-9/11 blame on bush alone. clinton, and thousands of government heads share that blunder. not to mention those terrorist guys. post, i think bush handled the situation pretty well.
the economic collapse is the fault of so very many things, including the man soon being sworn into office. i do disagree with the bailouts.
pre-katrina, again, i think so many government mistakes are to blame. not to mention that nature stuff. post-katrina, i think the reactions have been dreadful. yes, i agree, during and immediately following, much of the situation should be handled by local authorities. but the fact that there are still abandoned and ruined towns, nearly 4 years after the fact, is deplorable. this is perhaps my strongest anti-dubya issue (likely closely seconded by overly religious rightwing sentiment)
