I'm not gonna get into exactly how many lies are in Bush's autobiography, because different sources say different things, though it is clear that the choice wasn't as difficult as he made it out to be (several cabinet members and various assistants therein have said as much). They were planning for war long before it was announced. What this means is up to the reader.

However, I will say that with regards to public relations, he didn't exactly have the best people on the job. When he was first elected, he was nearly adored as a sort of common everyman, an average joe who sometimes did goofy things on camera and could make/keep our country great by the powers of democracy. His fanbase adored him, the rest didn't care or felt a vague sort of "Why didn't my candidate win, this guy sucks," but none of the serious, intense hatred you see nowadays.
However... After all the screwing around with various wars, public opinion of him dropped astronomically. As it continued, he stopped being able to rationalize the war(s) in the minds of the American people, which is why his approval rating was / still is so low. Even if war was the right choice (not saying if it is or isn't, since as you stated, I don't know everything), he certainly could have done a better job at public relations. This is probably his underlings' fault, though he could have hired better, I suppose.

Most of the lack of change on Obama's part I blame on our democratic form of government. Not a "bad" blame (at all!), since I'd rather have slow change for the better than a dictatorship (or maybe worse). Still, most of his plans and proposals have been shot down by congress and filibustered to death.

The president (whichever one you pick) is a figurehead, really, is what I'm trying to get at. You can't blame the actions of an entire government on him, even though he has quite a bit more power than the average government official, he can't change things by himself. Checks and balances. :/

COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO TOPIC OF ARTICLE BUT IMPORTANT TO TYNAN I THINK

So in your website's design (at least at my resolution, 1920x1200), the sidebar for related links, rss, twitter, etc. is wider than your content column. This is unnerving (since it's a trick I used to use to make my articles look longer, and visually it's subtly off... >.<;) Is there a reason I'm not seeing? If not, I'd like to comment towards it in a negative fashion.

Maybe your examples were on purpose or maybe not, so I'll avoid the trap of discussing the political arguments that you expose. Talking about the principles, you're right. There are always several levels of understanding when it comes to some field. It's only the foolish that keep on ranting without finding out more.

While that may all be true, we imagine us living in a democracy. That means, in principle, that you and me get to decide.

Now we voted to get out of the war. so exactly that should happen, regardless of any other "information".

Or we should finally admit that our democracy is elitism.

Thinking that someone is a lying and that someone is an idiot are two very different things.

You lied to the general members to prevent the casinos from cracking down on your usage of the accounts of other people.

You behavior was smart but not honest. In the same way Obama's campaign was smart but wasn't honest.

Wow... Very insightful article Tynan.

Say what you will about our presidents, but to be work you way up to that position, you have to be a SMART guy. Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law - the guy is a brain and I agree, I'm sure the information he was given after being elected changed his direction he is leading the country.

None of us are really qualified to judge him since we don't know a fraction of what that man knows. Totally agree Tynan.

I think it's a mistake to analyze the actions of politicians in the context of governance. There might be one or two who are there because they want to do a good job, but for the most part, the political system currently implemented in the United States selects for applicants who are interested in their own personal gain, and use political office to get there, not those whose primary goal is the general well-being of the country and its citizens.

The BEST reading I've ever seen on politics consists of these three (short) articles from lesswrong.com (originally from overcomingbias.com):

(Apparently I can't post multiple links, so go to this article and the links to the first two articles can be found at the top)
Stop Voting for Nincompoops

And more from the same person can be found by clicking on the link at the end of the first article to get to the "Politics is the Mind-Killer" sequence.

thats very fair minded of you..I agree as individual politicians they were probably just acting on a with the best of intentions because of the information they were privy to - but even giving the benefit of the doubt over the Iraq invasion, it was driven by the fundamental christian beliefs and fears of Bush and Blair and we see that taking that kind of precipitative action can have major tragic consequences .
I think Iraq had a ruthless dictator because of the depth of the divisions in that society ,whose etnic/religious groups promoted their own interests and views at everyone elses expense.That I feel is the major problem with the institution of religion where individuals in order to ally themselves to certain beliefs have to give up their own inner truth and subordinate that to the Priests,the Rabbis or the Imams and speak in what they believe to be one voice instead of many different ones .

I think Jesus,Buddah,
Confucias,Muhammed etc were all so influential because they spoke from their own hearts not from what they were told to believe, in fact they challenged the prevailing ideology of their day -..their words get repeated and distorted like chinese whispers if one doesn't realise they were historic figures and put them in that context while acknowleding the universal truths which resonate on a human level.