I don't claim to know enough about whether the Bush legacy will be positive or negative. I wish I had the same confidence that some of you do, but I am encumbered by needing facts instead of just parroting what friendly politicians say.
For example, take the Nixon administration. Very high approval ratings, he made tremendous strides in foreign relations, and in general was on his way to being one of the best respected presidents of the 20th century. One scandal, however, was the difference between a generation of kids with Nixon as their middle name and shame.
It works both ways. As low as the president's approval ratings might be now, there's no way to know how history will remember him until 10-20 years from now. While I personally disagree with a lot (A LOT) of his domestic policy changes (read: The erosion of the constitution, etc), I think it's equally possible that history will remember him as being "the guy who stuck it out and made the tough decisions" regarding extra-national threats. It's fashionable to focus on the WMD story, but that doesn't change the fact that a 100% KNOWN hostile world leader (who used outlawed chemical weapons on his own people, invaded and attacked other countries, and more) is out of power.
I know a bunch of you think that I'm some sort of weeny "liberal commie scum" for some reason, but disrespecting the office of the president and judging before the facts are in are both no-no's in my book. I disagree with a lot of things he's done, but I will stand when he enters the room, I will be polite, and I won't post any asinine elementary school insults that extremists on both sides lob back and forth. "Bushie"? You're absolutely entitled to your disagreement, it's protected by the constitution, but you look silly when you take someone's name and modify it to be perjorative. C'mon.
