hero or zero?

it must be difficult for george w. bush, to think that as a two term president he is still unsure what his lasting legacy will be. will he be a real american hero or will everything catch up with him and show his administration to be the most screwed up to date?

it is no wonder that he is so insistently pushing social security reform. iraq had no wmd's. i'll give bush the benefit of the doubt and say saddam was sneaky and moved them elsewhere, even with the leway i give him, he still has an unsolved war on his hands, one that is only going to get worse. (link)

if he is to be remembered as a great president, he will need to turn iraq into a functioning middle eastern democracy, whether it wants to or not, or fix social security, whether it needs to be fixed or not. according to msnbc (link) the president basically is telling untruths and is pushing overly hard. why wouldn't he? he has to be remembered for something other than being a screw up.

i read an interesting article in my new bathroom reading material book, "best american political writing of 2004". is an article by bruce reed from march 2004 in the washington monthly. "bush's war against wonks". the topic? how the bush administration fervently pushes politics before policy, there is little focus on policy. karl rove is in it to win, what you tell the american people to win is one thing, the best way to do it, or if it was even a good idea in the first place doesn't matter. think about it, last four years... hasn't that been true?

my conclusion. bush doesn't want history books to show him as a two term failure who won on an empty promise populist type deal. he wants to come out on top, be the man who forever fixed social security.

in other news, it seems bank of america has decided that oursourcing to india is the way to go and they set up a subsidiary there and are beginning to shift jobs there. more than likely my mom's out of a job. bush is right, we are creating jobs, just not american ones.