Well, I almost totally disagree with you.
The things you are griping about are not lack of leadership, but lack of political conniving.
He just does not have the gene for dishonest conniving.
Take the border issue. Any rational person knows that some accommodation will eventually have to be made for at least a large portion of the illegals currently here.
I was hoping and praying that he would forget that long enough to get strict border enforcement passed and then, OF COURSE, we would have had to deal with that, and generally been willing to do so.
But he's just too blunt and honest. Too trusting of liars, maybe. But the best man we've had since Reagan and the best one we're likely to get for many years to come.
Maybe someday you will realize that.
I have a problem with ballots in several languages. To become a citizen AND VOTE, you must have a reasonable command of the English Language. How many ILLEGAL Spanish votes were cast this election?
There is nothing dishonest about HONESTLY saying, "Secure the borders first, and all options will be open AFTER that!"
There is no dishonesty needed to explain Iraq, or to adjust strategy or personnel.
There is no dishonesty required to flame Congress for corruption (protecting Jefferson) or to veto bills laden with pork and earmarks.
And it TOOK dishonesty to claim the anti-Miers crowd was sexist, or the anti-free immigration group a bunch of racists.
It took dishonesty to run in 2000 saying he would veto CFR, then sign it after election.
And he might not have been the candidate in 2000 if he had run on a pharmaceutical give-away, or a huge increase in the Dept of Education.
GWB can be dishonest when needed. And he could have worked with conservatives without needing to lie.
Sorry, but your analysis contradicts the facts.
Amen