A well-crafted argument on George W. Bush's behalf with two major flaws: (1) there is no evidence to back up the author's assertion that Bush's policies were responsible for the lack of any terrorist attacks in the U.S. after 9/11; and (2) except in the most superficial way, he fails to grapple with the Bush legacy of promoting and encouraging torture.

Worst piece or rubbish I have seen in a long time. Easily in a par with those who deny the Holocaust. The author seems to gloss over all the crimes committed by Bush and Co, calling them right. Where did he get his creds? In a box of cornflakes? Worth reading only if you want to know how things got this bad.

Andrew Roberts, the well-known British historian (and well-known as being exceptionally favorable in his assessments of George W. Bush, offers a defense of Bush. Roberts claims that Saddam was widely believed to have WMD and that there was no reason to think he had destroyed them. This position is directly contrary to well-established facts, including the salient one, that the Iraqi foreign minister was on the payroll of the CIA and he reported Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the US.

Biased pleading by a star-struck apologist hack

There is no context and no sign that the author is familiar with the arguments.