<p>Well, if you apply virtue ethics to the question, you could argue that although the tactics employed by Guevara were brutal when looked at as individual actions, they were the desperate efforts of a man attempting sincerely to improve the lives of his people, and his resorting to violence reflects more on the hopeless political and economic situation then on his own character. I’m typically skeptical of altruism, but the fact that Che quit the medical profession to be a guerilla fighter suggests that his intentions were relatively clean.</p>
<p>Bush, on the other hand, has lived a sheltered existence since the day he was born. At no point has he put himself in political (let alone physical) danger in the puruit of his “ideals,” allowing the blame instead to be shunted on to one of his subordinates when something goes wrong. Rather than combatting a corrupt establishment, he is the embodiment of a corrupt establishment, repeatedly displaying contempt (or at least apathy) for the American democratic political system, his decisions to ignore Supreme Court rulings being a prime example.</p>
<p>So yeah. Short version: one man can conceivably be excused because of his background and intentions, whereas the other is just further condemned.</p>