I don't blame anyone for feeling sorry for W, of for wishing to rehabilitate his tenure in office. The fact is, W naively placed foreign policy in the hands of the self-selected veep, Deadeye Dick, which ended up infecting the entire government of W's "war presidency".

History has spoken thus far:

Internal power struggle, Bush vs Cheney:

On Bush's team: Card, Gonzales, Miers

On Cheney's team: Addington, Libby, Wolfowitz

No contest. Bush lost.

Shawn's post reflects the diffused sadness.

Bush rocks!

brainD.. ead like totally,

I dont feel sorry for Him either idgit.. He makes the current thoughtless dunce in thief look like a thoughtless dunce in thief!

Good job W

Maybe Mary Jordan should stick to topics redolent of Arts & Living as the section implies. Unless she's trying to get "noticed" for a gig on the front page. She'd fit right in then.

And Bryan: What?

WaPo is just reporting the facts:

1. "known more for mangling the English language than for his eloquence"

Absolutely true. He just not "Edumacated" despite his silver spoon stint at an Ivy League college.

2. "Perhaps in a nod to his dismal 22 percent approval ratings when he left office, Bush noted that "popularity is fleeting. . . . It's not real."

Context is everything. His popularity certainly was fleeting. Take a look at the downhill slide from 9/11 until the day he left office.

And what does he possibly mean "It's not real?" That's it is transitory? Of course popularity is real - ask Mickey Mouse.

3. "He could have said a thesaurus was a big scaly creature that roamed the planet millions of years ago and they would have applauded."

One of the reasons GWB was elected and re-elected was that he spoke like an everyday Schlub, and everyday Schlubs loved him for it. He was the "candidate you'd most like to have a beer with". They loved him for his Schlub Flubs.

4. "even Richard Nixon came back in the public eye."

Another statement of fact.

5. "Some commentators recalled his famous flubs: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" and "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

A statement of fact. Some commentators recalled those famous Bushisms. So what? He's known for them and it has nothing to do with WaPo bias.

Is there any subject that you can't find a reason to whine about, Shawn? You have to be the biggest whiner in the blogosphere. Do you cry yourself to sleep each night, or just grind your test down to little nubs?

I suppose you'd prefer that lie about his accomplishments?

Love the comment in the article from Joanne Ryan.

"I kept looking for a teleprompter, but I didn't see one,"

Bush's gaffs make him an idiot but Obama's many gaffs while using a teleprompter makes him human. No bias there.

The personal attack on Shawn aside, I agree with Steve Green's assessment. The Post article is basically factual albeit perhaps in a snarky way, of course, but sufficiently restrained for the political leanings of that paper. Watching his performance in office, if W read the WaPo article himself I believe he is secure enough in his own sufficiently thick skin that he would not allot any time to care about its content. To me despite it all, it seems the guy still has the capacity to generate a level of personal affection that Nixon never had even in the first place to recover.

Factually accurate doesn't equal unbiased.

For instance, here's some facts I cobbled together.

On Tuesday Oct. 27th, 11 American troops and three U.S. civilians died Monday in two helicopter crashes in rural Afghanistan, while President Obama played golf. In an interview with Politico on May 13, 2008, former President Bush stated "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Factually accurate. No opinion is explicitly stated. However, the collection of facts does imply a point. I doubt that even someone as dimwitted as Steve Green would argue that an article written in such a manner wouldn't be expressing a bias.

BryanD tells us that history has spoken. If so, it is a pretty short historical record. BryanD might be the only one who believes the lessons of history are apparent 10 months later.

Rick

Stevie AGAIN misses the point. Does Wizbang allow teenagers to comment? Obviously stevie is just that.

GW is a man Obama can never raise himself to meet. ww

Steve,

Can you comprehend the notion of context?

The article being discussed is not supossed to be an opinion piece.

IN THAT CONTEXT, why can't the reporter stick to objectively reporting the event without interjecting her own "snarky" remarks and left-leaning descriptions?

Come on, Steve-O! Rub those two neurons left in your brain together and at least pretend you can view things as they are.

Your compliment that I "have to be the biggest whiner in the blogosphere" should bring me great notoriety.

If you can't accept the fact that I opine and comment on public events and statements, then feel free to run with your own dogs.

Now.. Go take the pacifier out of your ass, and put on your jammies w/the feet sown on.

No, no, no.. Not those..

The ones that have the "sickle and hammer" patterns.

There ya go!

Ok. Now go back to reading your "Mein Kampf" pop-up book again.

Dunce.

(Btw, "grind your test down to little nubs"? WTF does that mean?)

"BryanD tells us that history has spoken. If so, it is a pretty short historical record"
-rick cared

True. 150 years is a good marker for historical assessment. But Bush is a special case as in Son of Herbert Walker Bush, business partner with mover George Soros, benefactor of judicial appointment to the presidency, overseer of 9/11 terrorist attacks, pawn of his junior, absentee commander-in-chief in charge of disasterously ill-starred military adventures that have bankrupted the nation confirmed in Oct 2008, and NOW a name that is forbidden to be cited in the polite company of his own Republican party.

Other than that though, beers all around!

IN THAT CONTEXT, why can't the reporter stick to objectively reporting the event without interjecting her own "snarky" remarks and left-leaning descriptions?

Probably because she never learned how.

"I doubt that even someone as dimwitted as Steve Green would argue that an article written in such a manner wouldn't be expressing a bias."

I doubt someone like Steve would bother replying to an ass.

"Come on, Steve-O! Rub those two neurons left in your brain together and at least pretend you can view things as they are."

Seems to be a trend. When you guys are made to look like the Republican buffoons you are, you snipe back.

"Ok. Now go back to reading your "Mein Kampf" pop-up book again. "

Shawn seems to attract the "under 15 crowd" - OK, I'll move on. There are bound to be some adults around here somewhere.

Geez guys, you got Steve mad at you and he left.

Do it again! Do it again!

The only question should be, "Did he give the paying customers their money's worth?"

The opinion of Bush's presidency will be resurrected for the good over time.
I am a Conservative Republican; voted for Bush twice, and would do it again. People are beginning to realize that being President of the US is not suited for a rank amateur like Obama.
George Bush will not be judged as a very good or great President, but relative to Obama, he stacks up quite well.
The MSM and the Obama administration think they are making themselves look good by constantly haranguing Bush and his past administration.
NEWS FLASH!!! To the MSM and the Obama Administration. GEORGE BUSH IS GONE FROM WASHINGTON!!!
To the Obama administration, you are on your own, even with the training wheels. To the MSM, fewer and fewer people will respect you unless you grow up and start reporting news.
Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus for the Washington Times summed it up nicely...
"They're learning, painfully, that campaigning without George W. Bush is baffling, frustrating and scary. Worse, it offers a preview of what the congressional campaigning will be like next year."

Doesn't Mary Jordan specialize in giving Barry knob jobs?

Steve Green:

I doubt someone like Steve would bother replying to an ass.

You needn't explicitly reply in that case, but I'm guessing the contradiction I'm highlighting is going over your head anyway so... I'll just end with 'dimwit'.

Hey Steve-o,

Not for nothing, but..

In response to one of my other current pieces, you're the oaf who told me to go live someplace else and get out of your country.

You want to hi-jack threads with personal attacks on writers and commentors, then reap what ye sow.

Now, back to a discussion about the actual subject.

"You want to hi-jack threads with personal attacks on writers and commentors, then reap what ye sow."

I addressed the post, point for point, and you responded with childish attacks - see comment 11 - a rather spectacular display of immaturity - and all because I showed you were barking up the wrong tree, as usual, and you didn't know what you were talking about, as usual.

And then when I say I'm moving on you just can't shut up about it and you attack some more.

You are the whiner of the year in your posts and you live up to that in the comment threads, as you've amply demonstrated here.

Can't wait to see what immature topic you choose next. "Wah wah wah - look how the mean old (insert anyone here) is beating up on little old me and Republican pals."

Seriously - I guess you don't realize what a whiner you are - but look back at your posts. They are are almost always whining complaints about the man old somebodies who are beating up on poor little you and your the little Republicans.

Grow a pair.

'The Won' better pray to Allah that the MSM never turn on him. Its a daily contest at the White house to see who spits out the bigger blunder, Obama, Biden or Gibbs.

"When you guys are made to look like the Republican buffoons you are, you snipe back."

You're the only one here I've seen made to look like the petty sniping jerk. And you've done it without any help from anyone here. I especially like your comments of late which require no thought other than to just barely skim the surface of the issue, declare everyone around you a hypocrite/buffoon/lunatic fringe/etc.

s green - "Seems to be a trend. When you guys are made to look like the Republican buffoons you are, you snipe back."

Excuse me, who was it that started this rhetorical pie fight, lets check the record shall we:

From your first comment in the thread:

Is there any subject that you can't find a reason to whine about, Shawn? You have to be the biggest whiner in the blogosphere. Do you cry yourself to sleep each night, or just grind your test down to little nubs?

From your comment #21 - "I addressed the post, point for point, and you responded with childish attacks - see comment 11"

No asshole, see your first comment (number 4) that I just addressed.

You started it and now, to paraphrase you, are the "biggest whiner in the" in the thread for being caught being what you consistently are, an asshole.

If only he had been a tele-prompted retard and not spoke his true feelings....

hopechange.... hopechange

Steve,

If your lack of comprehension wasn't so pitifully obvious, it would be exasperating.

Honestly, I have more respect for comments given by our resident libs BryanD, SAUD, and Vic then anything you've written since bubbling up here. I may not agree with them, but at least they represent themselves with apparent intelligence.

"I addressed the post, point for point, and you responded with childish attacks...and all because I showed you were barking up the wrong tree, as usual, and you didn't know what you were talking about, as usual."(Steve)

Is your attention span that limited, or do you purposely ignore your own skid-marks?

Go read your first post (#4). GO READ IT!! Pay particular attention to the last part.

All you did was number the thoughts of Ms. Jordan, then offer up a couple of your own words of sarcasm in agreement to what she wrote.

The only way you addressed me was with personal attacks and consistently bad grammar.

Stop picking fights, include some substance into your posts, and prove you can engage people without being insulting.

MoveOn!

-Shawn

It's a shame you felt attacked, Shawn, but I guess that is part and parcel to your victimhood.

And being a victim makes it so convenient to avoid the facts -- rather than admit that you were wrong about the news report you were whining about -- as was confirmed by DaveD above -- you fell on the floor and started spittling about me taking a pacifier out of my ass (?)

Wow. Still stinging from me calling you out yesterday on your use of the invective MURDER to describe abortion? You were wrong then and you're wrong about the news report above also. Murder is a specific legal term, but pointing that out to you made you look stoopid, so of course you lash out at me here.

You're on a streak pal. Can't wait to see what you get wrong next.

But feel free to go back to # 4 and read it yourself. Feel free to counter anything, or just keep whining. Your prerogative. I'm still waiting for you to answer... but you won't. You don't have a pair yet.

One shouldn't address Stevie Green directly as that is his goal. I would say ignore the boy and move on to the meat of the post.

The article is a glaring confirmation of the liberal press to actually just report who, what, when, where and how. Not to give a jaded, out of context rant with obvious aternative reasons. ww

s green - "And being a victim makes it so convenient to avoid the facts -- rather than admit that you were wrong about the news report you were whining about"

s green - "But feel free to go back to # 4 and read it yourself. [excellent advice, you should heed it] Feel free to counter anything, or just keep whining. Your prerogative. I'm still waiting for you to answer... but you won't. You don't have a pair yet."

Apparently your pair isn't, or has never been fully descended as you still ignore your cheap on-called-for shot in comment 4.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33734

oh that washington post??

You know what, Steve?

You have convinced me.

I am a foolish individual.

You have effectively displayed such a complete demonstration of forensic ability that I have arrived at the realization I will never regain the energy which I have personally expended processing the photons involved in such a physiological transaction.

I guess, since I feel such a sense of emotional and physical degradation, I can only submit our teachable communications to the judgment of others.

I only hope that they will be merciful in their opinions of me.

Thank you for enabling me to see the error of my ways.

You, sir, are an intellectual Goliath.

Shawn - "You have effectively displayed such a complete demonstration of forensic ability that I have arrived at the realization I will never regain the energy which I have personally expended processing the photons involved in such a physiological transaction."

Huh?

You've been reading too much of bryanD's missives, it's staring to rub off. :-)

Steve Green:

And then when I say I'm moving on...

And yet you FAILED to even get that much correct...

Marc,

You may be right!

Btw, I've never been one for car racing, but, you've got a nice site.

-Shawn

Steve, Shawn has now moved from insulting to condescending, and clearly has no intention of engaging intellectually on the issues.

I'd declare a "win" and just move on.

Some advice. Tapping the glass around here never gets a cogent answer. It just makes the clown fish swarm and growl.

In other words, don't expect a dialog. Anything you say that isn't knee-jerk agreement is going to attract the attack fish, errrhhh, dogs. They will never talk about the issues, they'll just do their best to insult you.

Sadly, their 'best' is usually pretty pathetic.

Vic

And now VIC jumps in with his two cents worth of bull shit.

Vic,

The irony included in your comment and what it proports to convey is lost on you.

How about "engaging intellectually" on the "issues" included in the post?

Tool.

Steve Green:

"I doubt someone like Steve would bother replying to an ass.

You needn't explicitly reply in that case, but I'm guessing the contradiction I'm highlighting is going over your head anyway so... I'll just end with 'dimwit'"

Why? I reply to Your delimna on a per post basis.

Speaking of "dimwits", tm. Its about time You changed Your lightbulb.

"I kept looking for a teleprompter, but I didn't see one,"

If You squint a little Whitey squint; We know, We know;... it's right behind that nappy headed fat ass hula hoop chic.

"Sadly, their 'best' is usually pretty pathetic."

I see your point - thanks.

Ironic that they make fun of W. for not being an eloquent speaker, when it's quite obvious that once the teleprompter gets yanked (or goes on the fritz) from Dear Leaders eyes, he becomes a stumbling, bumbling idiot, too.

But all you ever hear is what a great speaker he is. He gives Chris Wallace a tingle up his leg afterall...

Stop bias...and let them do there job. It'll be a good thing to do except passing some annoying comments.