1) That shows his unbelievable arrogance. He honestly thinks historians will justify his actions in 40 years. Barring a catacylsmic shift in human ethics and history and democratic theory, I don't see that happening. If anything, he's headed to Ulysses S. Grant territory.
2) His presidency should be judged by what we know now, and everything we know now says he's an awful leader.
3) Still debating George Washington's legacy? What book is he reading? The only debate about Washington goes something like this:
Person A: He was outstanding, our greatest President.
Person B: No, Lincoln and Roosevelt were better. Washington was a mediocre general and didn't really have to face any trials and blah blah blah.
Person A: Well, all things considered, he's one of the greatest Americans, a true hero.
Person B: I would agree with that.
No one out there honestly thinks Washington was anything less than a "good" President. Bush just likes fancying himself after Washington instead of the Presidents he should be compared to (say, hid idol McKinley, Harding, Reagan, and about 15 others).
