A bit of temperence is always wlecome. You are correct in your assessment. I am inclined to think that not only will W not be remembered as a great president, he will go down as one of the worst. My worry is that the situation in the middle east will deteriorate and the U.S. will take the brunt of the blame. He would not be alone in the undeserved role of historic pariah due to his unwavering pursuit of the correct course. U.S. Grant deserves to be ranked as one of the greatest as well but history has not been kind to him either for many of the same reasons that I believe it will not be kind to W.
Compare Bush and Reagan on what happened during their administrations and Bush would come out on top.
You must also think Reagan is one of the worst too?
So, I guess you would have preferred a president that would not act after an attack on America, that would allow Saddam to sell WMD to terrorist groups.
The situation in the Mideast will deteriorate because of the American public/liberals/media that have leaked secrets, lied about the true situation there and created an anti-war environment.
No president will be able to mount a war for any reason in the future, because the media will exert its great powers of propaganda for the enemy.
Yet, that should be okay with you as you only respect a do-nothing president.
Frankly, I support one that takes action even if the result is not as we attempted to make it. It was not our fault - it was the fault of the liberals/media/anti-war crowd and the terrorist activity stamping out any hope of freedom for the citizens.