I don't claim to be an expert in history or civics, although when I see one of those articles about a survey in which High School and College kids don't know such simple things like the names of the three branches of our government, or how many senators each state has, or when the Civil War or World War I or II was, I have to think that I have at least as much knowledge as the next guy.

And, if I was around 140 years ago, I might very well have thought differently about the events then than the way I view them today, considering that my knowledge is based on little more than the rudimentary and biased High School and College view of American History that was presented 30-40 years ago.

But just to take Licoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus for example:

Here's the difference:

Although I differ with many of the political views of Rudy Guiliani, for some reason I instinctively trust him.

And if he were the president today, and this whole wiretapping and eavesdropping thing came out and he said that it was necessary for national security, I believe that I would trust his motives and believe him.

Of course, that's totally hypothetical, and i don't know how I would really feel if he was president, bu that's how I think I would look at it.

President Bush, on the other hand, I do not trust or believe.

I don't want to get into a whole Bush-bashing thing here yet again with specifics - I'm sure you can figure out your own examples of what I'm talking about here, anyway - but I think that the motives behind many of his actions are suspect at best and may border on criminal at worst.

And I think that some of the things he's told us may be displays of ineptitude at best, and outright lies at worst.

Now, as I say, I might've felt differently if I was around in 1865, but I have a feeling that Lincoln was a man worthy of my trust.