>>>I should really keep my mouth shut. But when have I ever been any good at that?
>>
>>I should really ... oh never mind. :)
>>
>>Presidents legacies do not com into focus for a minimu of 5 years and realistically need 10-20 years before historical perspective is able to make a proper determination. I believe W will be judged solely on what happens in Iraq. If Iraq becomes a shining example of democracy in the middle east spawning other countries in the area to adopt democratic principals, W's legacy will be secured as the great liberator. If Iraq falls into a failed state, the hands of a nuclear Iran or other awful circumstances, W will be regarded as a failure due to the "horribly misguided saga" as you put it. If Iraq struggles between the two extremes for decades W's legacy will be just that, mediocre.
>>
>>As you know, I despise a great deal about W and his government-first policies which squandered the best chance the GOP had to undue the decades of socialistic creep in the State, however, knowing what we know now I would once again cast my ballot confidently for him over the megalomanical Gore and his delusional fantasy life as Gaia's Messiah.
>>
>>Time will provide perspective and context to which contemporary reporters have no access.
>>
>>IMHO anyone claiming to be a "historian" who passes judgment on the whole of a presidency without the benefit of even 5 years is not to be taken seriously.
>>
>If Iraq would even become that shining example, it still leaves in place the claim, valid one imho, that GWB squandered the best chance the GOP had to undue the decades of socialistic creep in the State. In other words, he either squandered it to liberate Iraq or he squandered it for nothing. Both ways it does not sound right.

I agree and I personally find that to be W's greatest failure. However, what I think and how history judges him are mutually exclusive. His legacy will go hand-in-hand with Iraq's fate.

>PS: I like "Gaia's Messiah' point.

Thanx