Sure they can. I disagreed with many things Bush did. I was very, very disappointed that his domestic agenda- the opportunity society, was completely de-railed by Iraq. He certainly should have listened to the Israelis concerning WMD's in Iraq rather than a CIA where the Valerie Plames and Joe Wilsons of the world can not only survive but get promoted. He should have known better after Clinton spent the better part of 8 years politicizing the CIA with PC liberals.
OTOH, Bush was 100 times better than what we now have. Funny how the same folks who questioned Bush's "gravitas" didn't care that BO had never managed anything of significance and did not have the qualifications or temperment to be President. Still doesn't. Funny the same folks that blamed Bush for Katrina and virtually everything else that went wrong in the world are STILL giving BO a pass on terror attacks in the US, the response to the oil spill, the jobless recovery, the threat to the US AAA credit rating, etc, etc, etc.
If there had been 3 serious terrorist attacks on US soil, more bail out packages (remember the media and libs condemned Bush for them), gov't takeovers of private institutions, more stimulus spending, discussion of regulating political speech on the internet, released Homeland Security memos of "mainstream" liberal constituencies being hotbeds of potential terrorists, or the like under Bush or any other Republican... you can be sure of two things. Those issues would STILL be on the lips of the mainstream media and they would not rest until that President's popularity was well under 50%.
Word to the wise, don't believe everything you here from the media (who poll over 90% Dem) or professors impressed with their own elitism.
k::clapping::thumbsup: