“…and perhaps the place where the 43rd president settles a few scores.”

What makes you think he will settle a few scores? One of the big criticisms he receives is that he never defends himself!

Yes, the Republicans also have had their faults, which I won’t go into during this post because they are already well pointed out in the press, sometimes less than fairly.

DL13 on December 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

You should. The supposed faults pointed out by the press are all bogus whereas a genuine conservative critique of the Republicans would be useful.

And as we all know from later revelations about the subject of WMDs in Iraq, they were deliberately used by the Bush administration to sell the war in Iraq to the American people, as clearly described by British intelligence when they said the facts about WMDs were to be “fixed” around the unstated Bush policy of going to war in Iraq.

“I think I was unprepared for war.”

Two errors made in Iraq:
1. We should have forced an Iraqi surrender, not capitulation.
2. We should not have enforced a de-Baathification policy.
Anyone who has studied warfare in any detail would know that these policies were not a good idea. There is no such thing as a “conventional” war. All wars are “unconventional” at some level. Going into Iraq was a good thing for a number of reasons. It was the execution, namely the two policies I listed above, that lost us the momentum.

I’m so sick of this dry-drunk apologist for himself, this partisan ignoramus, I could puke. George Bush’s legacy to America is the rise of the Left. It appened under his watch. It happened while he watched, and said and did nothing. Good riddance. I only hope we can recover.

rrpjr on December 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM

A good example of backwards thinking, and adopting the media’s assessment. Bush is the opposite of an apologist for himself. He would have been more successful if he had spent more time defending himself and his positions. Partisan? If he had been more partisan, he would have spent more time concerned with helping the Republican party rather than just trying to do what was best for the country. Unfortunately, his lack of interest in partisanship helped the Democrats. It’s a great trait overall in a President to be willing to step back and let the next generation of leaders take over. If the next generation of Republican leaders hadn’t been John McCain, it might have worked. In fact, if the economy hadn’t taken such a nasty turn at just the right time, McCain still would have won.

Unfortunately, if McCain had won, the pressure for a Democrat to win the presidency the next time would have been just about irresistible. It was bad enough this time to put an empty suit in.

If you learn to look at everything Democrats say in a mirror, you’ll be about right.

Right, Hilts, I agree. I meant non-partisan, or rather an ignoramus when it comes to being partisan.

rrpjr on December 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM

Maybe if Bush stopped trying to be “the good Christian turn the other cheek” President and had a bit of Truman or dare say Clinton in him he would have told his enemies where to go and would have won the respect of those of us who voted for him.

I’m so sick of this dry-drunk apologist for himself, this partisan ignoramus,

Bush is a lot of things but partisan he is not. As I previously wrote I would not be surprised if he voted for “the fine, young, articulate man Obama”.

Why is it so inconceivable to me that he might reaffirm the extraordinary bravery and competence of our military in winning the war, and the crucial imporance of this victory the Middle East and the world.

Or that he might instead regret that he didn’t speak up to defend himself and the military against the numberless slanders of the anti-war movement.

Or that he might regret that the “loyal opposition” turned so swiftly and dishonestly against the war three months after voting for it.

Or that he regrets that his many attempts to improve the tone on Washington were summarily spit upon by the Left.

Why is it so inconceivable that, in the vein of Eisenhower, he might give a speech on the “Academic-Media complex” of the Left that is corrupting our national communication upon which democracy depends and destroying civil discourse in America?

I’m so sick of this dry-drunk apologist for himself, this partisan ignoramus, I could puke. George Bush’s legacy to America is the rise of the Left. It appened under his watch. It happened while he watched, and said and did nothing. Good riddance. I only hope we can recover.

No it wasn’t-the GAO confirmed it. Read their report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Del Dolemonte on December 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Thank you! I hate when the childish tantrums of the outgoing Clintonistas is denied. They did it, all right. Unfortunately, at the time, President Bush downplayed it, presumably in hope of furthering the “new tone”, and the BDS-ers immediately pounced on that as proof that nothing must have happened.

Jackals from the start, all of them.

Kensington on December 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM

To be fair, the GAO report did conclude that some of the stuff the Clintonistas leaving the WH were accused of doing did in fact never happen. However, the W keyboards thing did happen.

Given how the Bush White House said they KNEW there were WMDs in Iraq, it’s not surprising President Bush and the rest of his sorry crew didn’t have a clue about the wisdom of going to war or the subsequent occupation either.

starfleet_dude on December 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Dude! Haven’t seen you since the Captain’s Quarters days.

Unfortuntately for you, your first statement is hogwash. Most of the intel that Bush used re. the WMDs came from the previous (Democrat) administration. Even our new Secretary of State-to-be said that she based her yes vote for the war not on what the evil Bush said about WMDs, but what Mr. Bill’s intel people told her when they briefed her.

Hilts: You are right. Bush’s greatest deficiency as a President was his inability to pick more talented people who could implement his vision of conservatism.

RedSoxNation on December 1, 2008 at 3:56 PM

IMHO Bush did not have a vision of “conservatism” (alas) other then a GOP noblesse oblige type of watered down liberalism.

Outside of Richard Nixon (whom the Left at least had a modicum of respect for his political skill, nobody claimed Nixon was an idiot – until Watergate), has there been a more undeservedly reviled President then George W. Bush? The heap of abuse that man had to endure (without fighting back) for 8 years makes me think that anyone from the GOP who wants to be POTUS is insane.By the way Maverick how well did that friendship with the Washington Press corps work out this year once the rubber hit the road?

I do fault President Bush for – at a time when the American public needed it most, a time of war, he couldn’t find one competent person to be his spokesman to the press, and more importantly, to the American public. Ari had tire tracks on his back and McClellan was as nothing as nothing gets.

Marcus on December 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Agreed. Bush’s greatest fault was his loyalty towards incompetents who repaid him back with base ingratitude and treachery – Scott McClellan, George Tenet, Paul O’Neill (not the Yankees Rightfielder but the Treasury Secretary), Colin Powell, Michael Brown, Norm Minetta, Anthony Zinni, the list is very long indeed. Even Donald Rumsfeld a man I liked, hung around long enough to do him damage. Tony Snow though was an excellent W.H. press secretary.

Bush: I was “unprepared for war”

This is a shocking revelation!