Financial crisis dims Bush's Iraq legacy

please...what has bush done? let's see.... he lied about WMD's to start the iraq war, war on terror, that's costing us 10 billion a month. has he found any WMD's in iraqi yet? the surge- why is the surge a success? that's like saying, I spilled milk on the floor and I did a great job cleaning it up. so stupid. and has he ever found osama bin laden yet? I don't think he even wants to find bin laden, seeing that his dad and osama's family are buddies. don't forget hurricane katrina- where was he? it's still a mess down there. why did it take him so long to show up? oh yeah, he was busy celebrating mccain's b-day. and current economic crisis- it took him a week before he showed up. there's plenty of people to blame here, but he's the president and the buck stops with him. all I saw him do these past 2 weeks was show up about a week late and scared us into giving paulson 700 billion dollars to do whatever he wants, no questions asked. PLEASE....someone....tell me why we're supposed to look at bush in a better light? maybe I'm missing something?

Wow, sad to see that the washington Times is becoming a rubber stamp to the Washington Post.

Hello Honorable Reporter Jon Ward: You are an honorable person in what is considered today an honorable profession. Really. Trust me, umm. Should add here that in the process of organizational change, many are angered, hurt and disagree with losing their desks. Imagine the hatred for our president's move to reorganize the entire government? Press loved it, and still do and still "capitalize" on it. You are too. Gotta love President Bush for that. Where it not for that, MSNBC would have tanked years ago. "Mr. Bush has said that history will judge him more kindly than contemporary critics do." When and in what setting did the devil Bush say this? I would have liked to have learned that from your article. Others say it. I say it too because the political articles written today are what historians scrutinize in the future, but you already know that. In my view, history will look at the Bush presidency and see more than anything a reorganization of American government and in particular the way America is prepared to fight wars during this century - wo! that's way, far away from anything talked about in today's press. To some extent a president is connected to economy failures and successes, but so are you and I cause we spend, borrow and save. Does the pres's job description include policing Congress who had and has a major role in overseeing programs that influence Wall Street? History is written at least a generation after an event and after those associated with the event are gone from this world. Poltics is set aside and good and bad decisions become clear as time goes by. I think your article is purely political and hard to apply to what the future history writers will have to say about Bush's work, what he did and what he failed to do. Oh, all of the negative press piled on Bush over the years is also accessible in the future, even your articles will be there for scrutinizing by historian long after you and I gone.

Hey Mik: You said: "PLEASE....someone....tell me why we're supposed to look at bush in a better light? maybe I'm missing something?" All right. How to be truthful and analytical, and, as we all know, to do that requires, perhaps what you're missing - a brain.

The Republicans were right about Bill Clinton's morals and the Democrats were right about Bush's incompetance.