Actually I don't really know much at all about what Bush does. There are allegations he went awol, but all of these he could have cleared up long ago by releasing all his records. In fact he concedes this himself by promising to release them now.

It's not unnatural in the face of this stonewalling to suspect he has something to hide on the matter. Maybe he doesn't but so far he's been caught in a bare faced lie about his service in his memoirs. You might think that is going too far but he is on record in his memoirs about what he said he did.

Virtually all the accusations of lying are from economists who run blogs. They call him a liar on various parts of economic policy and I usually just link to where they say this. Many of these economists have served as goverment officials and are regularly interviewed on CNN for example.

The point I have always made about this is that these are serious accusations and there is a lack of defense to the charges they make in economics. For example of you go through the post I made "a page of lies" and consider the sources:

1. Brad de Long, an economist echoed by several other economists.

2. The national guard story is all over the mainstream press and witnesses are saying they saw records destroyed and Bush didn't show up.

3. Many economists worked out the figures and shows this is false about discretionary spending.

4. With tax cuts it is virtually impossible to find economists to say these were an economic stimulus.

5. Hans Blix was head of the UN inspectors.

6. Discrepancies with the head of the CIA.

7. Actual quotes from O'Neill from treasury records.

8. Mainstream newspapers reporting on grand jury proceedings.

9. An article in Mother Jones on the OSP.

10. Quotes from Republicans on how the cost of the Medicare bill went up.

All of those are from sources of well known mainstream economists, government officials and mainstream newspapers. They all, repeat all, assert lying in those sources. I didn't add on that accusation, they made it themselves.

My only complaint against Bush is his economic policies, and how economists virtually everywhere make these accusations. Personally I have no real opinion about Iraq and WMD's except as to whether Bush and co made up or exaggerated intelligence. Those kinds of questions need to be answered in an enquiry. Politicians naturally have to make judgements in matters like Iraq, often they are just figureheads for think tanks who have a certain doctrine. In fact I wouldn't really argue with anything Bush has done in foreign policy. The only aspect is whether he didn't take Clinton's adice on security about 9/11.

This just gets back to the corruption issue. If his policies were lax compared to Clinton they may have contributed to 9/11. That's an issue that needs to be aired transparently and thoroughly, but again it's the stonewalling that makes it appear like something is being hidden.

The issue of the National Guard is only relevant to me because he made many specific statements about it and I don't believed he should be allowed to get away with misrepresenting it. I would also point out these charges are serious, people could go to jail for altering records and Bush cronies in Texas have been specifically accused of that.

As to what he did in the National Guard, I think it's obvious he used political connections like many others did. On this issue you need to decide whether it's ok for Bush to lie about what really happened. He's in too deep to stop lying about it now. That is, if he has been lying he probably can't admit to it, things have gone too far. If he knew then that he would be president one day then no doubt he would have attended those drills.

As with Nixon though, it's the coverup. If he lies about it and is found out then that's the function of the press. The public has a right to know if Bush is lying about anything.

The only thing I really care about in politics is corruption. I do believe there is a lot of evidence of corruption, and a lot of accusations come from reputable sources. of course a lot come from blogs and people desperate to pin lies on Bush but I don't believe the articles I post are like that. A lot of people hate Bush personally, I don't hate him at all. I think he's a crook and a liar like the rest of his familly for decades though.

I also believe transparency is important, with the Democrats as much as with the Republicans. With Clinton a lot of unfair accusations were made, but on the bright side he had to be squeaky clean for the most part.

From personal experience I always think of an old fable about a swan (IIRC) getting asked by a scorpion to give it a ride across a river. Halfway across the scorpion stung the swan and as they drowned the swan asked why. The scorpion replied, I can't help it, it's my nature.

In my experience people like Bush are crooks by nature and they can't change. These accusations have been around for years now with good sources and now it seems every day there are more of them. I think if Bush wins another term it will be more of the same.

So in summary I believe as long as politicians are honest, the system is open enough for people to see if anything is being covered up, no conflicts of interest are allowed, they are reasonably intelligent (I would say Bush is smart enough), and policy is driven in a scientific method by experts, think tanks, etc then there is little to complain about with politicians. If Bush would do those things then I would have nothing bad to say about him.