This is an article worth reading as an alternative retrospective on the Bush presidency.

Though I tend to disagree with the piece’s final assessment that GWB was “right,” the jury is still out on the most historically important decisions Bush made (wars with Afghanistan and Iraq) and will be decided based on how the Iran question is ultimately resolved. We don’t know yet whether ousting Saddam was a historical blunder, removing the most potent counterbalance to the Iran’s brand of Islamic fundamentalism, or “a victory for the US-led coalition” and the harbinger of a new democratic era in the Middle East that the neocons thought it would be.

Right now, Iran’s influence in the region seems relatively unchecked, which undermines Robert’s thesis. Time will tell whether the Iranian nuclear program and the rise of Hamas & Hezzbollah are a movement in its last throes or the beginning of a wider revivalism.

On the questions of civil liberties and national security, I agree with Roberts assessment that history will look kindly on the fact that Bush kept U.S. citizens safe after 9/11 like it has on past presidents.

The economy will be a black mark against Bush no matter what (even if Roberts is correct that the crisis “started with the deregulation of the Clinton era,” Bush did little to reverse course). Still, a positive outcome in the Middle East can still spare Bush from the more dire forecasts of his legacy.

Update: Spike tells me that Andrew Roberts is hardly worth engaging with: “the man who published a series of essays about Hitler landing on the moon or some crap like that?” …to be fair, I know nothing about him.

I also, added: “it actually might be dumb to reserve judgment on a president till too far in the future… sure things might turn bush’s way… but i suppose a fair assessment should be made with a probabilistic outlook on the future at the time he ended.”