Recently a short news item appeared with the headline, "President Bush Desecrates American Flag," showing him autographing a small, hand-held American flag. This is an apparent illegal act according to United States Flag Code--Section 8, Part G (Respect for Flag), which states in part: "The flag should never have placed upon it...insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."
Bush's lack of knowledge about flag protocol is relatively insignificant. (I personally do not know the definition of "flag." Is what he is signing considered a real "flag" or a replica of a flag?)
But, Bush's willingness to subvert the Constitution, on the other hand, is a serious matter. Some of you might recall that in an interview, in 1999, I believe, before the first election, Bush stated that he believed God had called him to become President. It's obvious now that he also believed that God backed his war of choice in Iraq, his authorization of torture, illegal detentions without charge, disregard of habeas corpus, secret wiretapping, and generally his Dominionalist belief in the special calling of the U.S. to "save" the world or at least control it for the good of the "godly" U.S. In his last press conference, he admitted no mistakes, just "unfortunates." When God is on your side, then perhaps a half million deaths and thousands of tortures in Iraq are simply "unfortunate."
It was obvious to many before his first presidential election, in 2000, that Bush was woefully lacking in mental acumen for the office of the President of the U.S. You could tell then that he was ideologically bound and would govern from a rigidly neo-con perspective, which could lead us into trouble or at least generally ignore our many problems and ignore the Constitution. Which he did.
See this web page which includes an article from Reuters (1/19/2009) summarizing recent editorials from around the world about the Bush presidency: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Newspapers_around_world_skewer_Bush_on_0119.html
Historians are already judging the Bush presidency at the lowest rating (some have said the worst in American history. But, unlike presidents Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, I predict that we will hear little of George Bush after he leaves office, in terms of public service or, like Nixon, writing books about international affairs (unless he, Rumsfeld, and others, are charged with war crimes!), because he is so little interested in the world. He is a dull, lusterless man. There's much to compare with Calvin Coolidge.
It is interesting that historically we elect counterpoints to the previous president. To wit: If Bush is insular, ideological, subverter of the Constitution, knowledge-restricted, believer in simple (revealed) truths, and non-reader of books--contrapuntally we elect a multi-racial, multicultural, acclaimed writer, professor of Constitutional law, and the "most-intelligent-in-the-room," inspiring, great-communicator pragmatist. There's much to compare with Abraham Lincoln.