I think what Foeni's getting at is young people jumping on the bandwagon. It may be harsh, but ironically enough had Leah come out in support of Bush, I think she would've come off as being a lot less naive.
Being anti-Bush these days, and using grammatical errors to back it up, smacks of believing everything you read in the press and everything you see on TV. In fact I've yet to hear any coherent anti-Bush argument, from teenagers or adults. It all focuses on the obvious negatives pointed out by an overtly left-wing media. We had the same issues with an overtly right-wing media in the 80s. People have short memories.
Never ever trust anything you read in the papers. And certainly not what you see on US TV stations. The UK TV stations probably operate under the strictest standards for unbiased, balanced and fair representation of the facts, and I know that as I've studied the regulations that the UK TV companies operate under and have compared them to the lax standards in Europe and even laxer ones in the US. However the corporates still have a massive problem. Ever since media ownership has become more and more converged in a minority of hands, the bias has become overt, and frankly, slightly worrying as I'd say the media are now a 4th arm of government and should be impartial.
That's why I tend to put a little more credibility behind what, for example, the BBC says. It's British, so subject to stronger regulations, and it's non-corporate, so it doesn't have the same sort of corporate bias. However even then I question it, largely as their close ties to the government mean that the BBC often strives too hard to appear impartial at the risk of actually becoming biased against the government. I try to apply my own intelligence to the facts presented, rather than believing the spin and simply "borrowing" the conclusion the media give me.
Bush seems a competent enough President. The fact is, like Cliff said, he's smart enough to leave the decisions up to those who know what they're doing. In fact, any good president does that. Clinton did the same. Just because he appears intelligent on TV (and he does) and has charisma (which he does) it does not mean his administration was any better, and it's those people that actually make the decisions. If you want to criticise Bush's administration, slag off Rice or Cheney, but to criticise them just because Bush has a low IQ is poor form.
As it happens I agree with Kelsey. Future generations will look back and realise how wrong they were about Bush and this war on Terrorism. So I applaud him and Blair for taking the flak and criticism now, for going against what their country wants and realising that perhaps, thanks to the intelligence available to them, they know better than us what our countries NEED (regardless of what we want). A good leader always ignores what the people want and does what they need. If they didn't we'd never pay any taxes, because you can sure as hell bet we don't WANT to pay taxes (but we have to). That's why we elect leaders, to insulate our politics from self-interest.