In regards to "Misoverestimating Bush" (April 25), it's surprising that this complete nincompoop could somehow manipulate not only the intelligence community in this country but even our allies into reporting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The "liar" Bush, moreover, just because of a rapacious appetite for war, started a war knowing there were no such weapons and with full realization that it would make his administration look foolish and incompetent. Brilliant on the one hand and stupid on the next.
Where has the editorial board been since 2000? It was widely reported that even if the Florida count were conducted exactly as Al Gore wanted, George W. Bush still would have won. And the board is worried about the deficit spending? What's not mentioned is that President Barack Obama has caused the deficit to increase by 59 percent in only four years, has overseen the worst economic recovery since the 1930s, has embraced all of Mr. Bush's national security initiatives except water boarding, has demonstrated a level of incompetence in terms of working with both parties probably unparalleled in U.S. history and has diligently worked to divide America by practicing the worst kind of class demagoguery.
Mr. Bush certainly had his failures, but I've not read one economist who thinks the recession can largely be laid at his doorstep. The roots of the downturn were put down long before Mr. Bush became president. The bottom line is that Mr. Bush's presidency is looking better and better compared to the current occupant of the White House.
John Sandstrom, PhoenixCopyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times