Thursday, January 15, 2009

How bad is Bush? Not bad enough to keep the homers at home, apparently.

Lawrence Auster says it all:

I cannot tolerate the defenders and apologists of George W. Boilerplate, who are out in full press mode now that the worthless leader they worship is about to leave office.

Consider Joe Scarborough, who writes:
Twenty years from now, historians will not rate the president for the mistakes made in 2003. They will place him in the history books based on how Iraq and the Middle East play out.... I predict that like Ronald Reagan [sic], history will prove to be on the side of George W. Bush.


The notion that a president who misperformed this badly, worse than any president in history, but who, after several years of disaster, finally did the thing he should have done at the start, deserves to be in the history books alongside Ronald Reagan, is enough to make strong men vomit. It shows the Bush supporters to be the shameless, brainless, miserable toadies they have always been. If there were justice in this world, every Bush apologist would be excluded from politics and forced to go through re-education camp before he was allowed to publish anything or participate in politics again.

No comments: