bushhalo.jpgGah. Ack. Argh. I was all set to write about how after the disastrous NIE and the disastrous GAO report sneak preview, that anyone still waiting for General Petraeus to present his report (in much the same way that Wes Craven “presented” Mind Ripper) is plainly seeking an excuse to keep the war going.

But then I encountered something which blasted my mind beyond all capacity for rational thought, and which I must now share with all of you. It’s kind of a public service thing. (Your eye twitches will be reward enough.)

I give you the Turd Blossom himself, on the job to the very end:

The Washington Post scorned President Truman as a “spoilsman” who “underestimated the people’s intelligence.” New York Times columnist James Reston wrote off President Eisenhower as “a tired man in a period of turbulence.” At the end of President Reagan’s second term, the New York Times dismissed him as “simplistic” and a “lazy and inattentive man.”

These harsh judgments, made in the moment, have not weathered well over time. Fortunately, while contemporary observers have a habit of getting presidents wrong, history tends to be more accurate.

You know, the media had bad things to say about Hoover and Nixon, too… (and the NYT was right about Reagan). Criticism doesn’t always mean you’re a misunderstood genius. Sometimes it just means you suck.

President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.

He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.

“Moral clarity.” Wow. Fighting radical Islamic terrorists by invading a country that didn’t harbor any; by torturing and killing innocent people, or imprisoning them indefinitely without legal recourse; by illegally spying on your own citizens – this must be some new definition of “moral clarity” that I was not previously aware of.

Following the horrors of 9/11, this president changed American foreign policy by declaring terror sponsors responsible for the deeds of those they shelter, train, and fund. America, he said, will not wait until dangers fully materialize with attacks on our homeland before confronting those threats.

He almost makes attacking countries for no reason sound like a good thing.

President Bush will be seen as a compassionate leader who used America’s power for good.

I swear I am not making this up.

While most of the globe ignored Sudan and Darfur or refused to act, this president labeled the violence there genocide — and pressed world leaders to take action.

Yes, when no-one else would act, Dubya boldly… urged them to. What courage! He probably urged people to enlist for Vietnam, too.

The whole piece is basically a laundry list of these bogus accomplishments, like the economy’s amazing growth since August 2003 (that’s a funny choice of dates!), and Dubya’s bold vision on Social Security reform which will someday be proved fucking right. And then there’s this amazing paragraph near the very end:

I have known George W. Bush for nearly 34 years and have had the privilege of watching from nearby as history has placed its demands on him and our country. I know his humility and decency, his intelligence and thoughtfulness, his respect for every person he comes in contact with, his unwavering commitment to principle-based decision-making, and the quiet and compassionate hearts of the man and his graceful wife, Laura.

I have no idea who he’s talking about, unless he’s somehow confused Dubya with Jimmy Carter (I totally make that same mistake all the time).

Curiously, Karl didn’t mention New Orleans or Valerie Plame at all. I guess some things just can’t be spun.

(h/t TPM)