That either Reagan or Bush will be the 5th head on Mt. Rushmore. We're talking "America" here. Don't forget that. Crazy and dangerous doesn't enter into the decision.

Damn. Just damn.

That would be Nero. If he weren't afraid of horses, he might be making his horse the attorney general, or maybe -- at least -- the chief of staff.

... is that, once out of office, Bush starts hitting the bottle again and ends his days as a broken-down drunk, so embarrassingly awful that even Poppy's pals won't stick him on their boards or prop him up in any of their businesses. I hope he's such a drunken loser that Laura divorces him, and the twins disown him and even write tell-all books with countless cringeworthy anecdotes about what a clueless creep he is, and how things really go down during those inevitably tense Thanksgiving dinners. I want there to be dozens of YouTube phone-cam videos of him stumbling drunk and completely losing it and embarrassing himself in the worst possible ways, with millions and millions of hits. I want every city where he wants to put his Presidamental library to refuse to host it, so that he's forced to put it in Guantanamo Bay.

That's my fantasy, and it's what gets me through these dark days. If I believed in the hereafter, maybe I'd wish for him to burn in hell, but I don't. I just want his chickens to come home and ROOST.

What a great piece, Mr. Blumenthal! Love it. So much great detail in there...

Bush is a classic insecure authoritarian who imposes humiliating tests of obedience on others in order to prove his superiority and their inferiority. In 1999, according to Draper, at a meeting of economic experts at the Texas governor's mansion, Bush interrupted Rove when he joined in the discussion, saying, "Karl, hang up my jacket." In front of other aides, Bush joked repeatedly that he would fire Rove.

Creepy. All of the Bush League is. The fawning and ass-kissery, the threats and the put-downs, all that creepy authoritarian/psychopathic crap. Good lord. But "we" didn't vote them in -- the Supreme Court voted him in, after they'd cheated in 2000, and through vigorous voter suppression in 2004 (and a weak Kerry Kandidacy). Lord knows what they'll try to unveil in 2008.

The bit about the GOP having to make a clean break with Bush et al. is interesting -- can they do it? Do they even deserve another chance? Please! They made their Faustian bargain, and it's time for them to pay for it, one way or another.

I often feel absurd to hear statement like this "history will vindicate him" whether this him is referred to Bush or any other politician or public figure.

First of all, I don't trust a politician who so assuredly forecasts or predicts that how his action/decision would be interpreted by the history. How can he know? Is he God? This attitude reflects arrogance along with vanity. In Bush’s case, it is a reflection of ignorance, self-deception and a huge dose of vanity. History is not one plus one equal to two. History has always been influenced and shaped by many different forces and factors, especially in this complicated world of modern time. In addition, there is no shortage of examples in the history to testify that unintended decisions and accidental events that actually contributes to the making of history. Let’s use Bush’s Iraq War as an example. Let’s say Iraq eventually develops into a healthy democracy after one hundred years of bloody struggle. Should Bush claim any credit for or should historians attribute this to Bush? The answer is a resounding No because as mentioned before history is shaped and influenced by many forces and factors. Also, who knows if Bush hadn’t waged this outrageous and costly war, what would have happened to Iraq. Would Iraq be worse than the present condition? Obviously Saddam would not live forever. There might have been internal changes to free the country from Saddam's tyranny instead of this external force--the war--that has so unnaturally imposed on Iraq and its people.

Any reasonable thinker with logics knows that Bush should not deserve any credit but blame, not only now but in the history, by waging this dishonest war that ruins another country’s stability, costs colossal taxpayers’ money, and destroys enormous young lives and families. Without admitting to himself what damages his action has created, Bush must be in his delusional state to spell out such a shameless claim—thinking history will vindicate him. As a president, his responsibility is not to the future history but to the people and the country in present tense. That's what Bush should be judged and that's what Bush should be concerned. Only irresponsible, self-indulgent and cruel dictator would put his country in a situation, such as we are in now, and let his people die, suffer, injured and damaged because of his willful desire to fulfill a farfetching dream, so he should have a place in the history.

As a result, Bush’s words have always ringed harrow to me. He has always been a leader of lowest denominator.

Bush is fiddling while Rome burns.

The Bush years have been a disaster for America. Is Bushco the cause or merely a symptom of our decline? History will have a lot to sort out. In my mind, knowing what an insecure, underachieving, privileged, and petulant man Bush is, his persona and presidency can be analyzed, ad nauseum, for years to come. The larger and more important analysis will involve how imperfect systems selected this inferior man and the course that was set by his inept leadership.

C'mon. Bush as just "entered" a phase of decadent perversity? I appreciate that smart, respectable journos like Sidney Blumenthal *have to* parse the facts "on the ground" minute by minute, or they would not have jobs. And I do respect that. But Bush has been completely immersed in decadadent perversity since, at least, the "Mission Accomplished" speech in May 2003. Any attempt to portray this as a "new" development is . . . well, sadly, perverse.