A few days ago, Josh Marshall remarked that it wouldn’t be long “before pundits decided it was time to be “counter-intuitive” and start “reassessing” the Bush legacy”. Today, the UK Telegraph publishes a classic Bush reassessment piece by nut job Andrew Roberts. What’s most remarkable here is that it’s almost entirely the same old arguments — “victory” in Iraq, Libya out of the axis of evil, the subprime crisis was Democrats’ fault, the elites just hate Bush cos they’re elite, etc. But I haven’t heard this before:
this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.
Or this (italics mine)
With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac’s France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.
If you don’t have the patience to read the piece, you can just watch this: