Bush is not a failure

You're considered a failure when you do not achieve what you set out to accomplish. Bush has had some notable failures (destroying Social Security, Harriet Miers, etc) but my big criticisms are with his successes and with what he didn't try to do. In comments at The Daily Muck reader acf said:

Bush got a lot of nasty, wrongheaded things signed into law. He wanted to invade Iraq, he did it. He wanted gigantic taxcuts for his buds, he got them. He wanted to name rightwing conservatives to the Supreme Court and swing it to the right for an entire generation, long after he's gone from office, he did that. How do we define success, achieving what we set out to accomplish, or achieving what's proper? How about we say he was successful at what he wanted to do, but that he was the worst president in history, leaving the country in far worse condition than he found it, both domestically and internationally. All the things he wanted to do were detrimental to the country, and all the things he didn't attempt because of lack of interest, or political ideology, left us weaker for it.