Yes, I'm too stupid to read. Just as you are too stupid to see that saying historian will judge someone in some way, is a judgement statement by the author, not fact. And it definitely is NOT fact.
And judge GW any way you want to, but if you rank him near the bottom, then you have forgotten all of his conservative accomplishments, for reasons of your own. Despite his failings, he's been one of our very best presidents, and if I disagree with him on some issues, I agree with him on most. If you think he's betrayed conservatism somehow, I think you are being too harsh. He's compromised too much in some ways, but held his ground in many others, and you withhold credit unfairly.
I'd be willing to wager you haven't even read the article that Dr. Hart is referencing.
Nor have you read my comment that I agree that historians might rank him that way, even though I wouldn't.
And I don't have trouble with an ideological approach, per se, but the ideology must be appropriate. Note that President Bush did not use the term "democracy" for Iraq for quite some time...he spoke of "liberty" and "freedom." These distinctions are VERY important. A theocracy is not a democracy, yet may or may not offer liberty.
Some FReepers might call this boring and unimportant, but it goes to the heart of what FR has stood for through its history.