Keith, why do you say I'm under-informed?

Because he disagrees with you. Of course, he can't actually verify how well informed you are, but that hasn't stopped him from making such assumptions before. I wouldn't pay it any mind.

For my two cents, I don't think Bush was malicious. Incompetent, certainly, but perhaps well-meaning. I do give him credit for the troop surge (though not enough credit given the sheer cost of the invasion and what could have been done with that money. Universal American health care, almost wiping out AIDS in Africa and a dramatically increased minimum American wage would barely bite into it), and I give him credit for being the first president to appoint African Americans to high positions (Rice and Powell, who deserved those positions, regardless of race).
In the aftermath of Katrina, there were many accusations that Bush was racist, but I don't think that was justified. I think the poverty of those people was more of a factor than their race.

I find it interesting that Bush is supported by many in the conservative sector. Sure, he lowered taxes on corporate entities, but he raised government spending to a ridiculously high degree. You can teach a 7 year old that you can't spend what you're not collecting. It's a pretty basic principle. He had the biggest government in history, and spent money in amounts that have never been seen before. How this can be supported by conservatives, I really don't know.

I'm interested in seeing the movie, though the reviews I've seen have been rather lukewarm.

not a bush fan, but i thought this article/review was quite interesting; sure, the man didn't win the us presidential election (either time) but maybe seeing the film will provide some insights? we (australians) have voted for some pretty poor types in our day, too ... jas

sancho, it is fair. i agree that bush's role was to be a front for the true psychopaths. but bush is still a nasty bit of work.

TRTL, bush was well-meaning? nonsense! if he had been well-meaning he would have actually gone to work. he would have actually tried to learn something, rather than remaining willfully pig-ignorant. he wouldn't have shat on the constitution. he gives a damn about no one but himself. a spoiled, good-old-boy alcoholic halfwit.

what kind of lowlife mocks a person he's allowed to be executed? bush is awful. he is unmitigated scum.

"I find it interesting that Bush is supported by many in the conservative sector... He had the biggest government in history, and spent money in amounts that have never been seen before. How this can be supported by conservatives, I really don't know"

Because he was a born again Christian, with great appeal to the 51% there who believe in creationism. He was 'one of us'. Think runner. [Ever seen the film The Body Snatchers? Not unlike them, really] Faith-based initiatives, Terri Schiavo, axis-of-evil, etc. There is no underestimating the power of advertising your superstition when a solid proportion of the electorate is similarly inclined. Automatically he becomes the saviour of the nation, and with support from fear mongers such as Rush and Coulter the cumulative effect was not rational evaluation but unconscious and life-affirming agreement.

Much the same with that dimwit Sarah Palin. How else could she get within a bulls roar of leading the party, much less the nation? Bush legitimised the fear and loathing of conservatives had about the godless educated classes (read 'elites').

The conservative bit - small government, lower taxes, states rights, & so on - was a front. None of it served the interests of the people, but by golly he was a strong, principled, Christian, god-fearing, dumbass.

Oh good Nick,

I suspected your article wasn't intended to be serious, ..hence my statement about your being underinformed... but now your response indicates otherwise.

You see there are just so many unsupported assertions in your article I just couldn't challenge them all. Space wouldn't allow that.

So here are some list, justify each of them and you might be able to learn our kids a lesson.

1.'...W, Stone’s biopic about the younger Bush, is that it is fair...'
Fair? Hardly it misses so much of Bush's positives, especially his academic achievements and concentrates only on his negatives. If it was fair it would have at least mentiuoned them. You statement suggests you don't know about George's Degrees.

2. '...his success is tinged with the sadness which that tortured relationship brings.' Really? This diagnosis of course you or Stone can back this up with psychaitrac reports can't you? And his success wasn't limited to electrol process now was it?

3. '...to the focus gained through finding God and getting off the booze.'
Really? Who told you or Stone this? George? What about Laura or are you too mysognist to recognise she might have played a role in this?

4. '...Colin Powell whenever he resists the proposition that Iraq should simply be invaded for the purposes of securing America’s oil supply.'
Whenever did C.Powell say this? It wasn't reported as far as I know and if it had it would have been headlines for weeks in the leftie media ... it wasn't ... so we draw our own conclusion. Why do you think this one of Stone's assertions fair? How did you know Powell said this?

4. 'Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice take turns at stepping the President through a PowerPoint presentation detailing why the US should colonise the Middle East to secure its oil supply.'
If you believe this ... you're idiotic. Rice wasn't secretary of State at the time of the invasion, it was Colin Powell. Why didn't you challenge this? Didn't you know?