Dowd probably knew it would shoot down his credibility in the political world and bring on a firestorm from former political allies, to come out against the man that he helped put into office, but he did it anyway. Maybe his conscience meant more to him than his commitment to the man and the ideology, and I think that should not be denigrated. Morrissey’s comments are crassly political, illogical and immature.

Neither did the Democrats, who spent most of the first term calling Bush the “Commander-in-Thief�, constantly undermining his authority.

is just so massively stupid. Show me, oh captain, where a Democratic Representative or Senator said this. Show me where even a person of authority in the DNC said that. Morrissey is no better than any other Bushista.

Freedom for all except- enemy combatants, minority voters targeted for investigations of voter fraud, terrorist groups like PETA, government scientists who agree with the prevailing wisdom on global warming, inmates at Abu Ghraib, inmates at Gitmo, wrongly accused and subsequently tortured Canadian citizens, inmates at secret prisons worldwide, victims of genocide in the Sudan, US citizens whose phones were illegally tapped, US citizens who were the subject of the FBI’s wrongful National Security Letters, Democrats.

“Limousine Loser Liberals”… “lefty hyenas are greedily giggling and gobbling their usual carrion”

It looks like Lori O’Briens and Tom Paines “it’s the liberals” pejoratives are as close to a reply to this article as we’ll get from the ‘Bush is Right’ side.

The points Matthew Dowd makes regarding the actions of George W. Bush are indefensible, so those who consider him infallable will do anything in their attempt to divert public attention… Anything that is, except address the legimate issues and questions raised.

Think Kurdistan. DUH!

To reiterate:

One: George Bush has freed 50 million people from two of the most murderous governments on earth.

Two: He has done this at a cost in lives (meaning ours, theirs, AND collateral) that makes this one of the cheapest wars of Liberation America has ever fought.

Three: Then, instead of simply appointing pro-American dictators, he has spent millions of man-hours and billions of dollars to give those 50 million people a chance at decent consensual governance and decent modern social systems (education, legal, economic, etc.).

Four: And if he fails, all of those 50 million people will fall back under equally murderous religious fascists — who will likely conduct Cambodian-style genocides in the middle of the world’s most important oil region.

Bush’s policy represents the highest and best use of American power – notwithstanding its allegedly flawed execution.

So — how do the endlessly-carping critics intend to maintain these always-ignored gains? And why should anyone believe they mean it?

BTW: Changing the subject is conceding the point.

I don’t understand how any leader or members of a party who could feel good by demonizing their opponents, who are after all , loyal Americans just like they are. But that is the political environment in which we live.

Other than that… well, let’s see what he does now. If he works to defeat the thieving, brutish slime merchants he helped put into office, then his apology means something.

If, on the other hand, he goes and works for another Republican, then the apology wasn’t worth the air it took to utter or the paper his cri de coeur was written on.

Any ideology that arrogantly divides its population on the basis of, “haves and have nots”, and, then oppresses the weaker by limiting opportunity and other acts of common political oppression is nothing other than unspeakable greed.

You cannot possibly believe that our national and international problems are solely Bush’s fault without considering the ideology that Bush used for advocating, justifying and then enacting these goofy policies? It was certainly neocons, through their now exposed as deficient ideology, that had the mordacity to present George W. Bush to the population of the United States as any kind of a competent leader!

Its not just Bush, it is neocon republican ideology as a whole!

He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq

Are there really still people who don’t realize that the president himself is directly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The legal rationalizations of John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales were tailored to the beliefs of the president – most other American leaders would’ve fired the men on the spot for such nonsense. He embraced their ideas and literally signed off on them.

In a display of leftist defeatism, former Bush chief campaign strategist Mathew Dowd, active member of Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated company man, has publicly expressed opposition to Mr. Bush’s leadership, denial of the validity …