Is there a sub-atomic level of small-mindedness, somewhere near absolute nothingness, that Weisberg can still shrink further to?

Think of all the Leftwing Icons that were totally crushed by GW. It began with Ann Richards, and continued through Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, Michael Kinsley, Dan Rather, Slate magazine and the "main stream" leftwing media . All of them at one time or other, challenged GW Bush's intelligence, and got steamrolled.

They said he was an idiot, but he was an Ivy League graduate, with a Harvard MBA, and his grades at these "prestigious" schools were better then the best the left could muster (Gore, Kerry)

I mean they were totally crushed, by an "enigmatic, mysterious moron?

So if he's a moron, what's below that? I suppose Weisberg would know from personal experience, just by looking in a mirror.

So if he's a moron, what's below that? I suppose Weisberg would know from personal experience, just by looking in a mirror.

Ha ha! I'm rubber and you're glue and whatever you ... say ... I think it bounces somewhere. At any rate, Right_By_Choice, I agree that the media got steamrolled by Bush. I think you're spot-on there. But I also think that they abdicated their duty to the American people by kowtowing to the Bush administration in unquestioningly reprinting its fabricated reasons for going to war. And that's just a start.

I don't deny that Bush went to an ivy-league university, nor do I doubt that he can, technically, read and comprehend adult material. But this doesn't somehow diminish his idiocy. Not when he's been as bad a president as he has. And I don't mean that he has been faced with difficult circumstances. He has been the worst president possible, under the very circumstances he has confronted. He may have "crushed" some left wing icons (and I have no idea how he "crushed" Ted Kennedy, or Slate for that matter, but I suppose you have your reasons for this statement), but in doing so, he has crushed many of the most cherished values of the American people. Like legal processes that govern both the people and their government (including the executive branch). Like the moral high ground in disputes over human rights issues, freedom of conscience and the press, and functioning government. Like an economic system that benefits the majority of Americans, not just the very-rich (though I hear they're not doing so well now, either).

Yes, Bush has "crushed it" alright. I just hope there's enough of "it" left to get up and reconstitute a functioning state again.

Bush has state clearly, and maybe not so eloquently on many, many occasions why we resumed the original Gulf War against Hussein. We had a conditional surrender from Saddam. He violated those conditions, so badly that the near worthless UN passed 17 resolutions against him. He was regularly firing missiles at US aircraft, he was giving a $25,000 reward to the families of Islamic suicide bombers. He, and his sons were murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and with the help of the russians, germans, and french, he was profiteering, and making a mockery of the worthless UN's Oil for Food program.

And believe it or not, according to his own generals, and scientists, he was continuing to pursue developing weapons of mass destruction. Read that again. He was continuing to pursue developing weapons of mass destruction. He had stockpiled tons of yellowcake uranium. Now this is not what the UN inspectors said, it was what the Iraqi's said.

He used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, and on Iranians.

And he tried to assasinate the former President of the United States.

Bush never claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Saddam was asked very nicely to quit. He refused. He was asked to step down, and go into exile, and he refused.

And only after a nearly unanimous vote from congress did Bush invade Iraq. Ted Kennedy voted to give Bush the authority to invade, as did John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, and all but one or two Democrats. They were briefed, and Hillary even state at the time that she had received briefing from Clinton appointees in the intelligence community, and the State department.

And all these "intelligent" people now, when it's politically convenient claim to have been "misled" or "fooled" by this "enigmatic, mysterious moron".

I don't particularly remember Weisberg's writings at the time, (and honestly usually don't consider his writings worth the effort), but they sure don't strike me as being some sort of voice in the wilderness, or particularly intelligent for that matter. So now, as Bush leaves office, he takes a small-minded petty shot, calling the twice-elected leader of the Free World a moron.

How noble. How gutless.

Is there any occupational category more exclusive than president of the US? All of our presidents were titans. That Bush was a titanic failure as well is something that can and should be discussed without name-calling.

I agree that the headline is inappropriate. But is Weisberg to blame? This story was posted on Newsweek/MSNBC as well under the title "Enigma in Chief".

<link>

More likely the title is the work of some faceless editorial drone at Slate. Regardless, it's what I've come to expect from Slate - the headlines are all about shock value, but the content is usually insightful.

I agree that calling Bush a moron is intellectually lazy (regardless of who does it). Weisberg's opening paragraph smacks of intellectual elitism as well. Bush's reflection on history doesn't need Jacobs too-wordy interpretation - it's understandable to anyone with a 5th grade education.

PS...not an apologist for bush - didn't vote for him - I just don't like cheap shots.

I take no pleasure in saying this. And I don't speak for the left or anyone but myself.

But the vast majority of Americans are stupid. I mean STUPID, don't bother me with the facts, I don't care what happens beyond my county, the world was created in 7 days, I don't like that country so let's bomb them, stupid.

So of course any person or institution who tried to point out the inconsistencies or inaccuracies to my neanderthal countrymen got steamrolled as you put it.

Not because they were wrong. But because the audience was to dumb to understand.

patootee about anything other than their little world. These are the people who believe they are getting money from government when they get a tax refund.

They can name more of the 7 dwarves then they can Supreme Court justices.

The can tell you names of Brittany's kids, but don't know who their Senator's are.

Most don't even know if the Dems, or Repubs are in charge of their county, state or country.

Maybe you should have to take a test to vote.

thanks for the comments right by choice. i am sick of how vile, nasty and gutless journalism has become. you make some excellent points.

@ Right_By_Choice:

"And only after a nearly unanimous vote from congress did Bush invade Iraq. Ted Kennedy voted to give Bush the authority to invade, as did John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, and all but one or two Democrats."

This is pure fiction, as is a lot of your revisionism. In fact, a majority of House Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution. And 21 Senate Democrats voted against the resolution, not one or two as you claim. <link> Your assertion that Ted Kennedy voted for the resolution is absurd. Kennedy has publicly said that his vote against the resolution was the best vote he ever cast in the Senate. <link>

A few diehards such as yourself still maintain that Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMDs just prior to the invasion. But George Bush himself conceded long ago that that wasn't the case. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in the Iraq War and one in six Iraqis is a refugee. That Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush had good reason to do so.

Right, dig a little deeper. Some keywords "curve ball," "yellow cake," "Richard Clarke."

Compare how long the Iraq war mess is lasting and costing vs. enforcement of the gulf war I resolutions.

Never mind the lunacy of your basic premise. Bush's Ivy grades were padded because of family connections, not uncommon at those prestigious schools, a benefit not available to the ”left wing“ people you allude to.

Of course Bush's grades were padded (insert sarcastic smirk here.), You know this how? It's a handy accusation, but what evidence at all can you provide. But Brahmin John F. Kerry's, and affirmative action B. Hussein's Obamessiah's weren't, because????

Why haven't any of Obama's "impressive" college writings or grades been released? Who paid his way through college/prep/law school? Who paid for his trip to Pakistan, on an Indonesian passport? A trip that was illegal for US citizens, but not for Indonesians.

I stand corrected. My apologies. Ted Kennedy didn't vote for the war. I confused him with the Junior Senator from Massachussets. You know, the one who didn't kill a young girl at Chappaquidick, and then use his family connections to cover it up.

And instead of "nearly unanimous" I should have used "crushing majority", I apologize for grossly underestimating the number of cowardly Democrats. I shall not do so again.