Want some amazing summer reading? Check out the Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program.

The title may not be a grabber. But this report, which was produced by the inspectors general of the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is a scorcher. It covers how the Bush administration went about implementing its warrantless wiretapping program--which, the report makes clear, was just one of several new and top secret intelligence programs initiated after 9/11 that were legally dicey.

The report was released on Friday--the day of choice for government spinners trying to draw as little attention as possible to information. (Saturday newspapers--especially during the summer--are the least read editions of the week.) The report did get full write-ups in the major papers, and these reports focused on the obvious point: the warrantless wiretapping was of limited value and did not, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have claimed, lead to counterterrorism operations that saved countless lives. The news stories also zeroed in on another key element: that the legal analysis supporting the warrantless wiretapping program and the other hush-hush intelligence programs (which the report does not identify) was of questionable merit.

But to get a full view of how far off the tracks the Bush-Cheney administration went, you have to read the full 36 pages. They detail how one mid-level attorney in the Justice Department--the infamous John Yoo--was able to cook up for the White House legal justification for these intelligence operations without any oversight from others at Justice. it's hard to consider this part of the report without coming to a harsh legal conclusion: this was nuts. Completely nuts.

The report also notes that because the White House--at Cheney's insistence--wanted to keep information about the warrantless wiretapping restricted to a small circle, this data could not be put to good use. The IGs also reveal that after senior Justice Department officials and FBI director Robert Mueller raised questions about all these programs, the White House modified or nixed some of them. Ponder that for a moment: the Bush administration ended anti-terrorism intelligence programs because of legal objections. If the Democrats ever suggest or do anything like this, Cheney and other GOPers go ballistic. More rank hypocrisy.

So put down that thriller or romance novel, and grab a copy of this report--a compilation of five separate classified reports--and read all about Bush era hijinks. You'll laugh. You'll cry.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

It's not often that reading a government memo makes you want to cheer. But two memos related to the use of torture released on Tuesday at a congressional hearing were rather heartening. They offered evidence that there were dissidents inside the Bush administration when it came to using waterboarding and other excessive interrogation techniques on detainees. Written in 2005 by three senior officials at the State Department and Pentagon, the memos are a reminder that even within the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, debate sometimes ensued. Still, the dissenters lost.

It's quasi-encouraging that someone was making the case for decency and rule of law. The first memo--written in 2005 by Philip Zelikow, then a senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; John Bellinger, Rice's legal adviser at the time; and Gordon England, then a deputy defense secretary--argued that the United States should "choose--as a matter of policy--to treat...captives...as if they were civilian detainees under the rule of law," in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. And their point was not that international law dictated such treatment--though it might--but that this made the most sense for the United States. As they wrote in all-caps:

WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT THESE DETAINEES ARE NECESSARILY ENTITLED TO THIS STATUS. TO BE CLEAR; WE ARE GIVING THEM A TEMPORARY STATUS THEY DO NOT DESERVE. BUT WE ARE NOT DOING THIS FOR THEM. WE ARE DOING IT FOR US.

Such an approach, they maintained, would be "one that Americans and the world are more likely to understand and accept as reasonable."

They conceded that human treatment of detainees could in some cases produce less, rather than more, intelligence. But they recommended being grown-up about the cost-benefit trade-off:

A few days ago, Nick Baumann and I posted a piece reporting that Philip Zelikow, a former top aide to Condoleezza RIce at the Bush State Department, had suspected Vice President Dick Cheney's office of having tried to destroy--yes, destroy--a memo he had written in 2005 disputing the Bush Justice Department's legal rationale for warterboarding and other extreme interrogation methods (a.k.a. torture).

On Wednesday morning, Zelikow is scheduled to testify before the Senate subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts--which is chaired by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The topic: "What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration."

It's unclear as of this writing whether the subcommittee or other congressional Democrats have yet unearthed a copy of the Zelikow memo, which Zelikow doesn't have. (When you leave government service, you're not allowed to take your files--unless, of course, you're Henry Kissinger, but that's another story.)

On Wednesday, I noted that Obama's ongoing review of Afghanistan policy is more important than his decision to send 17,000 more troops, for the key issue is what will be the mission of those troops. The Bush administration had two alternating approaches regarding Afghanistan: neglect and megalomania. By megalomania, I mean its messianic advocacy of transforming Afghanistan into a modern, Western-luvin' democracy. It's easy to spout noble-sounding rhetoric about human rights and such, but setting unrealistic goals for remaking another nation is arrogant. When Bush and his crew weren't ignoring Afghanistan--which was much of the time (see my 2006 article on that--they were promoting a mission there that was a bridge too far.

It's time to get real.

The National Security Network, a liberal-leaning policy shop in Washington, this week put out a policy paper listing of principles that ought to guide any review of Afghanistan policy. They are indeed reality-based:

George W. Bush gave his final speech to the nation on Thursday night. I skipped it to see my daughter, who has known no other president, perform with her school chorus. But when I later sat before my television to see how the speech was being punditized on the cable news shows, I was surprised. The water-landing of a US Airways flight in New York City dominated the coverage. There was little chatter--almost nothing--about Bush's farewell.

After watching the speech on the White House website, I understood why. It was flat and short. Bush said little of interest. He dwelled mostly on 9/11 and the so-called war on terror, once again (and for the last official time) characterizing the invasion of Iraq as part of his effort to take "the fight to the terrorists." He suggested that although the Iraq war was the subject of "legitimate debate," there "can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."

Was the nation's safety ensured because Bush invaded Iraq and did not finish the fight in Afghanistan? No doubt, he and his ever-dwindling band of defenders will continue to insist that it is so--just as a rooster might insist there is a connection between his crowing and the rising of the sun. And Bush defended himself for having been "willing to make the tough decisions"--as if making hard choices is the same as making wise ones.

George W. Bush the wise and somber presidential veteran.

Spare me. But as Bush prepares to leave office, he's trying to strike that sort of tone. I suppose it's easier to pontificate about the office of the presidency than to say, "Boy, did I screw up, I'm outta here." So at a press conference on Monday morning--probably his final as president--Bush discussed the burdens of presidential leadership and noted there will come a moment next Tuesday when Barack Obama, after taking the oath of office and watching the parade, settles into the Oval Office and says to himself, "Oh, my." (Maybe he will add, "Is this my beautiful house?")

But being president is really not that bad, Bush said. According to Fox News, he remarked: "Disappointments will be clearly a minority irritant." (Was that a Freudian slip? Or just another Bushism? According to the official transcript of the press conference, Bush actually said, "minor irritant.")

But the most surprising (I suppose) element of his non-mea-culpa is his insistence that he is unpopular because he did the right thing. For instance, he said that it would have been wrong for him to back the Kyoto global warming treaty just to be popular. Of course. But that doesn't mean trashing it was the correct thing to do. Bush seems to believe that popular disgust with some of his actions is a signal that he made the hard and right choice. See Iraq.

On Fox News Sunday, Bush had this telling exchange with Brit Hume:

I'm on the run today, but I did spot this bit of we're-shocked-shocked news. From the Center on Public Integrity comes a report entitled Broken Government that lists 125--count-'em!--"systematic failures across the breadth of the federal government" that have marked (and marred) the eight-year tenure of (now-disappearing) President George W. Bush. From the press release:

Among the examples:

* a Food and Drug Administration unable to guarantee the safety of food or drugs
* a National Aeronautics and Space Administration inspector general who blocked multiple investigations
* a budget deficit that ballooned to $455 billion for fiscal year 2008, and could reach $1 trillion in fiscal year 2009
* an Environmental Protection Agency that ignored and underutilized its own office and task force on children's health
* a Securities and Exchange Commission that sat largely on the sidelines, allowing little-understood new financial instruments to undermine the pillars of the economy
* a Federal Labor Relations Board with neither a general counsel nor the quorum needed to handle hundreds of complaints regarding unfair labor practices
* a terrorist detention system based at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whose legality has repeatedly been challenged by the courts

Many of the failures are rooted in recurring themes: agency appointees selected primarily for ideology and loyalty, rather than competence; agency heads who overruled staff experts and suppressed reports that did not coincide with administration philosophy; agency-industry collusion; a bedrock belief in the wisdom of deregulation; extensive private outsourcing of public functions; a general failure to exercise government's oversight responsibilities; and severely slashed budgets at understaffed agencies that often left them unable to execute basic administrative functions.

I know, I know. Most of this will not come as a surprise to anyone who has not been in a coma for the past eight years. The Government Accountability Office, as we reported recently at Mother Jones, has put together its own list. Chronicling the damage of the W years is an important job. And, alas, it won't be over any time soon.

On the road for the holiday, but here's a little nugget--and it's updated below. And let's notice that this Thanksgiving, George W. Bush did not bother to visit the troops in Iraq and serve them turkey....

As George W. Bush continues his vanishing presidency act, he's not had to deal with much fallout from the agreement his administration has negotiated with the government of Iraq--an agreement that compels the U.S. to remove its forces from Iraq. Given that Bush had repeatedly vowed that he would not agree to any timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq--claiming that making such a commitment would endanger the United States and its soldiers--his decision to do so is the equivalent of raising a white flag. Since most of the public barely bothers to think about Bush these days, his flip-flop has not been such a big deal. But those who watch Iraq closely have seen it for what it is.

For example, here's a press release from the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation:

Peter Galbraith, a top Iraq expert and former ambassador to Croatia, issued a statement today on the status of forces agreement recently signed by the United States and Iraq...."The agreement represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Bush administration, which had vehemently opposed any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq," said Galbraith.

Iraqi and American negotiators have been working on the security agreement for over a year. The Iraqi parliament is expected to vote on the pact on Wednesday. To pass, the agreement needs to get 138 votes out of 275 Iraqi lawmakers and also must be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council.

"For the last two years, President Bush has pretended that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is a democrat and an American ally. In fact, Maliki is a sectarian Shiite politician who heads a government dominated by pro-Iranian religious parties," remarked Galbraith. "The U.S. presence now no longer serves the interests of Iraq's ruling Shiite religious parties or their Iranian allies, so we are now being asked to leave."

The agreement mandates that "all U.S. combat forces" withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that "all U.S. forces" withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreement upholds Iraq's "sovereign right" to demand the departure of U.S. forces anytime and recognizes the United States' "sovereign right" to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.

....The agreement also bars permanent American bases in Iraq, prohibits the United States from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against other nations, and bars any residual U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.

Galbraith concluded: "While U.S. withdrawal is made easier by the fact that both the Iraqi government and the new U.S. administration want American troops out, the confluence of events leading to the agreement underscores the folly of President Bush's lost Iraq war."

The Iraqi parliament was expected to vote on this agreement on Wednesday.

UPDATE: On Thursday, the Iraqi parliament approved the agreement, adding some provisions that restrict certain U.S. military activities in Iraq.

Here's a piece I posted at Mother Jones....

Excuse me if I'm resentful of the attention Scott McClellan, George W. Bush's onetime presidential press secretary, is receiving for finally telling the obvious truth that the Bush White House deceived the public about the Iraq war. Though McClellan's account has punch coming from an insider, he's late to the party. Some of us made the case when it counted--back in 2002 and 2003, before the war was launched, and in the following years--and we also maintained that the deceptive measures of the Bush administration extended beyond its PR campaign for war in Iraq. Yet back then McClellan was doing what he could to thwart such efforts. Now he says the media failed to confront the Bush administration forcefully enough. Which is true. But when reporters did try, McClellan put up a stonewall. So his complaint is like that of a thief who, after pulling off a caper, gripes that the incompetent police did not nab him. This is absurd. After all, before each press briefing, did McClellan go to the men's room and use a bar of soap to write on the mirror, "Stop me before I spin again"?

Let's turn to one example of McClellan's complicity--one that I know well, for it was an instance when McClellan spoke falsely to me.

McClellan's daily press briefing on September 29, 2003, was a rough one for him. The news had broken that the CIA had requested that the Justice Department investigate the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA identity. This meant that presidential aides could end up facing criminal charges. The reporters in the White House press room were in a justified frenzy. The CIA leak episode was now a full-force scandal. (Two months earlier, I had been the first reporter to note that the Plame leak was possibly a White House crime, but in the intervening period most of the media had ignored or neglected the story.)

Much of the press briefing that day was devoted to the CIA leak investigation. Answering questions about the Plame leak, McClellan declared, "that is not the way this White House operates." (Actually, it was.) He insisted that Bush knew that Rove was not involved in the leak. (Actually, Rove told at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson's CIA connection, which was classified information.) And McClellan said that Rove told him that he had played no role in the leak mess. (Actually, as just noted, Rove had.)

I was at the briefing, but by the time McClellan called on me, all of the leak-related queries had been asked. Even though I was keen on covering that story, I turned to another matter: the missing WMDs in Iraq and the prewar intelligence. A few days earlier, the House intelligence committee had sent then-CIA director George Tenet a letter saying that there had been "too many uncertainties" in the prewar intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. I asked,

Is the White House aware of the House Intelligence letter to the CIA on prewar intelligence, and what's the reaction to it? And does the President think that he was given bad or incomplete information that ultimately led to his decision to war?

McClellan replied that the CIA stood behind its prewar assessments. He went on to say:

We knew that Saddam Hussein had large, unaccounted for stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons....Then came September 11th, the attacks of September 11th. September 11th taught us that we must confront the new, dangerous threats of the 21st century, that we can no longer wait for threats to gather and come to our shores before it's too late. The nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations is the most dangerous threat of our times. And we must confront those threats before it's too late.

I followed up. A few days earlier, news reports had disclosed that Secretary of State Colin Powell, during a February 2001 press conference in Egypt, had essentially said that Saddam posed no WMD threat: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." And I decided to ask a question referencing this report. The following exchange ensued:

Q: You just said a moment ago that: we knew there were large unaccountable -- unaccounted stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In 2001, in March or February, Colin Powell said there weren't, as we learned of two days ago --

McClellan: Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and said, there were.

Q: No, no, listen to this. No, no, he said, at that point, there weren't. The [Defense Intelligence Agency] produced a classified --

McClellan: That's not what he said.

Q: -- assessment in October 2002 which said: we don't have any hard or reliable information about stockpiles. And the U.N. inspectors, themselves, said they had no hard information about stockpiles. So where are you getting your information from?

McClellan: Again, I think you're mischaracterizing Secretary Powell's comments. Secretary Powell went before -- and he said, that I never said that he was not a threat. He went before....Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and presented that very case to the world and made it very clear what was unaccounted for. Secretary Powell went through an exhaustive process to back up everything that he said, talking directly with members of the intelligence community....

Q: You said, before 9/11 we knew there were accounted stockpiles. [Powell] said, there weren't.

McClellan: Before 9/11 -- I'm glad you pointed that out, because September -- and, no, that is not what he said. September 11th taught us --

Q: He said that in --

McClellan: It was well documented by the United Nations Security Council that there were undocumented stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Q: That's not true....You are mischaracterizing U.N. reports.

McClellan: We're going to move on. I think I've answered this question.

McClellan, of course, had not answered the question. He had kept on insisting that Powell had not said what he indeed had said at that Egyptian press conference in 2001. Here was a journalist attempting to press McClellan on a major contradiction in the Bush administration's stance on Iraq's WMDs--in 2001, Iraq had nothing significant; in 2003, it possessed a major arsenal--and McClellan countered with a false statement and denied undeniable facts.

I was a bit flummoxed by his response. How do you deal with someone who tells you that two plus two is not four and sticks to that position? McClellan was engaged in basic stonewalling: repeating an inaccurate assertion to fend off an inconvenient question. He did this throughout his stint as press secretary, saying whatever he could to protect the president and keep the truth under wraps. He's right these days to remind us that the media screwed up bigtime by not sufficiently scrutinizing White House claims about the purported treat from Iraq and the Iraq war. But as a fellow who made the job of reporters tougher by mangling and obscuring the truth he's in no position to accuse anyone of failing the nation.

Where's the apology?

Politico reports that in his new book, former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan says that Bush was not "open and forthright on Iraq," adopted a "permanent campaign approach" when it came to governing, and used "propaganda" to sell the war. He also writes that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove "had at best misled" him about their role in the leak that disclosed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame Wilson and that he (McClellan) had presented information to the White House press corps that was "badly misguided." McClellan notes that Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Now McClellan says the media was not tough enough on Bush: "If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise....In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Excuse me for getting a bit huffy. But when it counted there were a few of us in the media who were indeed arguing that the Bush White House was setting new records in presidential deception--especially when it came to Iraq. McClellan, though, was part of the White House's defense team, pushing back against media coverage that questioned Bush's rationale for the war and Bush's serial abuse of facts. Apparently McClellan has seen the light. Well, where's his plea for forgiveness? If he were truly contrite about his involvement in a deceptive, propaganda-wielding administration, McClellan could demonstrate his sincerity by pledging that all profits from his belated truth-telling will go to charities supporting the families of American soldiers killed or injured in Iraq. For history's sake, it is good that McClellan is confirming what most Americans (according to polls) have long known: the Bush administration trampled the truth to win public backing for the Iraq war. But as an enabler (witting or not) of that process, McClellan owes the public more than a for-sale account. He should not profit from this book, making bucks for correcting war-supporting falsehoods that he defended. He ought to be doing penance. True heart-felt confessions come free.

George W. Bush should be damn mad at his speechwriters. His final State of the Union speech was pedestrian. And it was irrelevant. After all, at this point, his deeds drown out any words he could issue. As he faces the last year of the presidency, he really has nothing new to say: win, win, win in Iraq; tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts; freedom, freedom, freedom. He certainly is not in any position to propose major new policy initiatives. He cannot move anything significant through the Democratic-controlled Congress in the next eleven months--except the continuation of his unpopular war. So the speech barely warrants analysis. That said, here are portions that stood out and the obvious commentary.

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures."

Then why won't the Bush allow the U.S. Senate--which represents the people--to authorize or not authorize the agreement the Bush administration is now negotiating with Iraq concerning the U.S. military presence there? Democrats maintain this accord should be treated as a treaty and put to the Senate for a vote. Bush says he can do it on his own. How's that for empowerment?

"Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: make the tax relief permanent."

He keeps calling tax breaks for millionaires "relief." Why do people making over $250,000 need "relief"?

"Next week, I will send you a budget....And this budget will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets, and so should their government."

Just not during Bush's entire time in office and not for the four years after he departs the White House. He will be leaving his successor $9.2 trillion in national debt.

"I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. These are difficult times for many American families, and by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes."

What about the predatory lending industry that created the subprime mess? Nothing.

"We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions."

But not for all of those millions of Americans who are uninsured. Bush's plan would give a modest tax credit to people who can afford to buy their own plans. If you can't, well....

"Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil."

After seven years of the Bush II administration, is the nation significantly closer to energy independence?

"And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases."

Complete an agreement? How about getting one going? The Bush administration has demonstrated no urgency on this front, repeatedly blocking international steps toward redressing global warming.

"Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources."

This was Bush's only mention of China in the speech. China presents perhaps a fundamental challenge of this century. And what about freedom in China? Apparently, that issue didn't make the final cut for this address.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow."

But it's okay to censor the work of government scientists when it involves climate change.

"Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I am pleased to announce that in April we will host this year’s North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans."

If it's a march, it's a rather slow one. Much of New Orleans is still a wasteland. At least Bush is sending the city diplomats.

"Every Member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. And we all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I have laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and grandchildren."

Translation: I give up.

"Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals."

Translation: I have no idea what to do next.

"Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace."

See Hamas.

"We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to the enemies of America."

Haven't we heard this before? Paging Osama bin Laden.

"And we gave our troops [in Iraq] a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country."

That mission, Bush said a year ago, was to create breathing space for the Iraq government. In this speech, Bush did not mention breathing space for the Iraq government. Nor did he note that 2007 was the deadliest year overall for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. He did say that "American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission." A "protective overwatch mission"? Bush did not define what that meant? But it sure sounds like mission creep.

"Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

Bush always talks about the war in Iraq as if the primary battle is against al Qaeda, though numerous military and terrorism experts have repeatedly said that al Qaeda is a rather small slice of the insurgency in Iraq.

"Reconciliation [in Iraq] is taking place."

That remains debatable.

"A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven."

In Saddam Hussein's unfree Iraq, al Qaeda had no safe haven. And there is little chance that should the U.S. withdraw troops from Iraq, the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would hand over the country to the small and unpopular al Qaeda outfit in Iraq.

"This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year."

It just took Bush a little while to get around to working on the Middle East.

"America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world."

That must be why the United States' standing in the world is so low.

"America is leading the fight against global poverty."

Other Western nations devote a higher percentage of their gross national product to foreign assistance. By the way, there was no mention of American poverty in the hour-long speech.

"So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the State of our Union will remain strong."

We just cannot trust the people when it comes to war. Two-thirds of the American public now say the Iraq war was a mistake. Bush refuses to acknowledge that. This profound gap between the people and the president was not part of his assessment of the state of the union. Then again, how could it be?