I am certainly disappointed with Obama, but I think there's a need for perspective here. If the US right had their way, we'd have invaded Iran by now. And there's a list of domestic horrors that I'm sure would be well underway if we had McCain and Palin running the show; you need only look at state-level activity in the red states to get an idea.
I also think that Bush presented a much more reasonable face in the 2000 elections than we came to see. Compassionate conservatism was a line they pushed pretty hard that turned out to be a lie. And nobody expected Cheney to make Lord Voldemort look good by comparison. Rigged evidence for a war? Torture? And, of course, starting all these domestic surveillance programs that Obama is just continuing.
In 2000, the Republicans could still lay claim to the legacy of the Rockefeller Republicans, who were sane and reasonable stewards of the state, people actually interested in public service. W himself could claim that because Bush Senior was one of those reasonable Republicans.
So no, I don't think we all knew what we were getting with Bush. I'd say he turned out to be radically worse than people thought.
Most of what you say is...false or half-truths. Rigged evidence for war? Everyone thought the evidence was there, Dems, Pubs, and foreign nations. Obama isn't just continuing the surveillance programs, he has EXPANDED them. I didn't like Bush and I hate Obama. To say "if the right was in charge" is a) speculation and b) probably 100% wrong.
And if you were reading foreign newspapers at the time, you would have noticed that Colin Powell's presentation at the UN was met with much skepticism. Even in newspapers who thought that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea in principle.
And yes, the evidence was rigged. We know now that Curveball had lied and that George Tenet in particular had been told that Curveball wasn't trustworthy. But the CIA gave his testimony to Powell, anyway.
No. We foreign nations thought the evidence was bullshit too. Our leaders in the uk were entirely transparent and the population didn't believe a word. We were ignored.
I don't know what foreign nations you're talking about, but the UN was against it because their inspections found nothing. Going further I remember both Germany and France speaking against it. The only real allies you had was the UK, but the UK is always happy to agree with your bullshit and it is regrettable because if only you'd have pulled your head out of your ass for just a moment you would have realized that everything is a big fat lie, that the whole world was seeing, except you.
Obama was elected on a platform of opposition to those programs. Many he shut down outright. Others he imposed changes on.
In this case the changes didn't go far enough, IOHO, but it's amazing to me how quickly people change their opinion of someone, even in relation to much worse examples, due to single issues.
I also think that Bush presented a much more reasonable face in the 2000 elections than we came to see. Compassionate conservatism was a line they pushed pretty hard that turned out to be a lie. And nobody expected Cheney to make Lord Voldemort look good by comparison. Rigged evidence for a war? Torture? And, of course, starting all these domestic surveillance programs that Obama is just continuing.
In 2000, the Republicans could still lay claim to the legacy of the Rockefeller Republicans, who were sane and reasonable stewards of the state, people actually interested in public service. W himself could claim that because Bush Senior was one of those reasonable Republicans.
So no, I don't think we all knew what we were getting with Bush. I'd say he turned out to be radically worse than people thought.
As evidence, take a look at the difference between a British newspaper's endorsements: in 2000, they were for Bush; in 2004, against: http://www.economist.com/node/12499760 And then compare with their 2009 retrospective on his leaving: http://www.economist.com/node/12931660