Well, the article does not exactly lump Ike and Bushhead together; let's be very clear about the differences. Ike went to war, in what can only be called a legitimate cause; Bush has never gone to war but wants others to do so on grounds he will not specify. Ike warned the American poeple to beware the military-industrial complex; Bush forced people to embrace and support it. Ike was a well-read, mild-mannered, gentleman fromt he Midwest; Bush is an arrogant, semi-literate twit from Texas, except the Texans I know say he just pretends to be a Texan. Eisenhower was a good strategist and a proven general before he was tapped for politics; Bush was a general good-for-nothing and miscreant before he decided that qualified him for politics. Eisenhower was relatively thoughtful and quite articulate, and Bush is thoughtless, reacts primarily to his own anger and the dictates of his coaches, and cannot compose an articulate sentence to save his life.

A