Someone already willing to allow broad executive power in certain times provides a mostly sympathetic review of a criticism of criticism of Bush. Another article sought a reply from "the left," including:
“On the basis of your summary, Professor Knott has completely misunderstood both the Bush administration and my writings about it,” Wilentz says via e-mail. “Bush’s failures arose not from his being overly strong but so terribly weak. Handing so much power in shaping foreign policy to his vice president; giving his political ‘architect’ Karl Rove so much say in domestic policy, including the selection of federal attorneys; losing control of the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Administration] and the SEC [Securities Exchange Commission], with continuing disastrous results. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that executive power is at its ‘lowest ebb’ when a president defies the express will of Congress, which applies directly to Bush’s use of signing statements.”Other than criticism of various policies (some overruled by the USSC), this is an important point. Having been in the midst of the debates online from 2002 on, in comparison to a comment at Amazon, there was no mere "assertion" of what Bush did, but a lot of argument. One problem was that people at times didn't clarify that the past wasn't that ideal other, but even there, as a matter of degree, problems arose. This is underlined by someone like Jack Goldsmith being upset with how things went, even though he was supportive of a lot of the ends. A lot of comparsion to Lincoln, which is off both in the scope of the problem, but also the skill used both as a strong president and getting Congress involved.
The matter of degree also pops up with comparisons to Obama, an ongoing theme for me when people in effect say "not a dime's worth difference" (I can even hear the voice of Nader). As suggested here, "a liberal compromise with many aspects of the national security posture conservatives had established after 9/11" might not seem that ideal, accepting various problematic principles. But, as with banning waterboarding, drawing a limit SOMEWHERE, the devil can be in the details given the breadth of the issue at hand. The Bush criticism came in various degrees (though they often are stereotyped) from those who saw a middle ground (more Obama) to those who firmly opposed the ideas raised across the board (many now mad at Obama).
Anyway, Cheney is out there defending Bush's overall approach, and Romney supports Cheney, so there clearly continues to be a place for Bush defenders, including respecting his overall approach. That ultimately is what matters, not just the man.