That was a great article. Three days ago I was telling my wife what a pathetic example of humanity George Bush is. He takes responsibility for nothing he has done and at the same time continues to rant about what a great job he has performed. The evidence is quite to the contrary. He didn't take us into this war, it was congress, the previous administration, the faulty evidence he believed, etc. etc. He didn't help us into this economic disaster, it was all those things that happened before he go into office. He didn't cause this bitter political partisanship now overwhelming Washington and on and on. And he is not man enough to say he is sorry, that takes a humble, intelligent person to do. He is running and hiding behind all his rich buddies like he has done his entire life. There was a Doonesbury cartoon some years back. It shows Bush saying he is sorry for all this and more. The last panel has Mike awaking from a dream after dreaming it. I like to think of that whenever I see this sniveling coward who thinks he is a leader.

Joan, you believe history will prove Bush right, but be unkind to him, regarding the Iraq war? I'm sorry, but history can only say something nice if the result is going to lead to the principles that the historian values (e.g. greater regional peace, economic progress, etc.), but the future of Iraq looks at least as bleak now as it did before the invasion.

Prior to the invasion, we were seeing an end-of-life dictator in a frenzy of paranoia -- a disease common in despots left to fester, whether they're Mugabe or Pinochet -- and the likelihood that one despot would be replaced by another, or by an invasion by Iran. Now, we're looking at a series of weak, venal, and transient leaders who are trying to hold the nation together by balancing pay offs with hatred. The natural, or customary, follow up to that is the emergence of a strong man or a path of genocidal civil war. If something emerges after that, there is no telling what it will be.

As for whether Bush will be personally correct, that's going to depend on why he invaded. In six years, we haven't heard a compelling reason. We haven't heard a reason that can survive even the most cursory analysis. Even the paranoid and cynical explanations do not hold up. While his father worked a possibly sophisticated Panama Deception, this president has only worked an Iraqi Self-Deception, at best, and if a nation went to war over the private delusions of a single individual, it means that we have no democracy at all. History will not smile at that.

George Bush, as craven and villainous as he is and was, has his co-villains on the Democratic side of the Congress, where not even one-third of each house voted against the October, 2002, authorization. Chief among them were Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who stood in the way of investigations and limitations when GWB's "lack of preparation" became clear to all.

Also villainous was the "good guy", Colin Powell, who allowed himself to be used at the UN, and who cynically placed George Tenet behind him there with the thought that "see, I am getting this info from HIM; so don't blame me if I am wrong!"

The greatest villainy was arguably that of US journalism and the media that own it. They plead for special constitutional consideration as the "fourth estate", the "watchdogs". They were (and are) the lapdogs - except for a handful who could not be heard above the claque.

Finally, villainous were the American people, always ready to go to war on the word of the president, so long as it won't raise their taxes and will endanger only "volunteers" - youths who have little other opportunities for self-improvement, idealistic and poorly educated about the country they live in.

Another buck-passing move that Bush and his apologistas frequenly use is the "other administrations and other governments had the same intelligence." Yes, BUT other administrations and governments DIDN'T TAKE THEIR COUNTRIES TO WAR.

Well, yeah: the 46% who don't clearly see how criminal Bush has been don't read Salon. But public discourse still matters. And it IS crucial for people to go on record––anywhere and everywhere––about what has happened in the last 8 years.

So we shouldn't be cowed by charges of "Bush bashing" or heed the questionable wisdom to put this "behind us." Bush needs to be held to account in SOME kind of court, even if it's the court of public opinion.

Who knows what is in Bush's psyche--he is less aware than anyone. What matters is that his obvious character deficits *don't* mitigate his crimes. He ran for office on clear tenets (compassion, humble foreign policy, unity) and swore to uphold the constitution, and then he blatantly violated that contract with the people. So it doesn't matter that he is incurious, lazy, a buffoon, incompetent, etc. Even someone dim and lazy could have kept his word. Even an incompetent could have said, "no, I won't lie to the people who gave me this office."

He's trying to tell himself he's a man of honor, but he knows he isn't. Of course he can't fully absorb the amount of blood on his hands--it would be too horrific even for Bush.

Thanks, Joan Walsh, for telling us it like it is, although it does get me quite livid again ...

Why is this guy not arrested yet and prosecuted along the lines suggested by Vincent Bugliosi for example? See link below.

Please lock this smirking idiot up once and for all.

Don't let him get away with it!

A concerned reader from Old Europe.

"What a cowardly, buck-passing answer." from a criminal cowardly juvenile president.

He is guilty of so many things, but the deaths are unforgiveable.

Will we have the guts to take him to trial? I'm not holding my breath because we are living in a cowardly society, so full of fear.