I feel validated. Today in the New York Times
there is an article about Bush and how he is saying that "the real reason he invaded Iraq is to bring democracy to an undemocratic region." It would have been interesting to see Colin Powell explain that one to the Security Council, but I digress. The author of the article, David Sanger, explains that Bush views his Presidency as one of the big ones as far as presidential terms go. Certainly we've seen some big events and we'll probably see some more big ones but I think it's safe to argue that Bush has not risen to the occasion of any of them, but I digress again. The real point of this post is to quote Mr. Sanger:
"at moments he [Bush] often seems to also be talking directly to historians, tilting the pinball machine of presidential legacy. It may not be too early: the year 2006, many in the White House believe, will cement the story line of the Bush presidency for the ages." Hey I said that last week! Is this guy reading Lowbar? He's much more eloquent than I but I scooped the NYT! Go figure.
