Yeah, EEE's post was a tad on the ramblicious side and didn't address O'Reilly's beef with Bush. But I still think your argument is silly. If Bush cured anything worth curing, you know perfectly well he'd get credit for it. But he hasn't. This administration's policies have been destructive, divisive, and probably a few other d-words I can't think of right now. And his reasons for going to war have been as rapidly revolving as they are disingenuous. There's no "there" there, and that's O'Reilly's point (I'm presuming--I didn't see the show).

And of course it doesn't pain me to agree with O'Reilly when he's so obviously right. I was joking. And to answer your next question, I'd be quick to agree with Bush if he ever said anything I agreed with (come to think of it, I agreed wholeheartedly with the anti-nation-building statements he made on the campaign trail, aired gleefully by The Daily Show earlier this week).

However, it does bother me that a career bottom-feeder like O'Reilly is the only mainstream journalist bothering to make a run at this story. His dearth of credibility isn't going to do any favors for people who take this matter seriously.