A lot of recent (past two years) analysis compares (and contrasts) Bush with Woodrow Wilson:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27903
http://www.hnn.us/articles/1451.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1209-05.htm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110001926
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/reynolds2.html
But it seems that the pro-war right-wing take on Bush now is that he is a failed liberal idealist, like Wilson. Which is funnier, Bush the successful revolutionary or Bush the failed idealist? I think even more than Clinton, Bush somehow believed that 'multilateralism' meant European and E. Asian satellites lining up to bow and pay homage to US hegemony. Bush's own interests are more closely locked up in that part of US capital that needs the national security state, its huge military, intelligence and 'homeland' security budgets (as well as US-initiated access to development state pork barrel in allied states). So ultimately I believe Bush will have failed the world and his country, but he will also have launched his family even higher in the national security state economy than his old man did. F
-- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10