The astonishing arrogance of the newspapers, EVEN NOW AS THEY DIE

President George W. Bush and President-elect B...

Image via Wikipedia

I am not one whose fervor for Mr. Bush lasted much past the election of 2004, and certainly it started to dim after no WMD were found in Iraq.

Was going there right? YES.

But that reason arrived at, according to Colin Powell by virtue of committee decision to NAME a reason, was nearly catastrophic and CERTAINLY hinders us now against a more formidable and determined opponent in Iran.

But IF (and the jury is still WAY OUT ..but not as far as in 2005-6) Iraq emerges as a democracy EVEN IF 50 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN IT *****SHOULD****** BE JUDGED, Bush may well have been the man who both WON the war on terror, AND avoided a Huntington cataclysm while doing it by deciding to change the entire world dynamic and take a big piece of the board. One can only wonder where that would put him in the ratings of the 40+ men who had been president.

Big if ... but he CERTAINLY had his problems. I won't go into them again.

NOW GET THIS...

From the McClatchy papers ...

WASHINGTON -- Is George W. Bush about to start a political comeback?

Written off as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history when he left office, the 63-year-old Bush has been keeping a low profile, fading from view as the country turned its attention to his successor, President Barack Obama .

Written off by who?

Eric Foner?

Cornell West?

Tony Judt?

Howard Zinn?

The ghost of Edward Said?

Noam Chomsky and his nebbish pawn Finsklestein?

Schultz and Olberman and Maddow?

The arrogance of the editorialized "reporting" is BREATHTAKING.