I'd be willing to wager that the Hart article was a hit-piece on GW, written by a self-styled conservative with rather curious principles. I couldn't care less what this article, which prognisticated GW's future historic infamy, has to say, since it is nothing but speculation, and probably based on personal dislike. I happen to disagree with nearly everything the author has to say, find it insulting rather than enlightening, and find your defence of this crap mere sophistry. I am not at all impressed with your ability to parse sentences or words, and I can assure you that I'm not blind to a critic who uses other's quotes to defame another. You seem to excuse these smear tactics, because the author cites another source. I see the reason the author cites this specific source, it being to criticize GW. Historians will judge GW, either fairly or unfairly, in different ways, depending on their own world views. If they're fair, they'll judge him as one of the best, in my opinion. To say differently is to take sides in the pro- or anti-Bush debate, which this author definitely has.