From Hero to Goat

* An enormous financial incentive for those mostly young, healthy people who choose not to buy health insurance even though they can afford it, to instead buy super low-cost catastrophic policies and get the full tax deduction.

* An enormous financial incentive for young, healthy people who have employer-paid health insurance to opt out of those plans and instead buy super low-cost catastrophic policies and get the full deduction.

* An enormous financial disincentive for companies to provide particularly generous health-insurance options.

* Not much incentive at all for low-wage and/or ailing folks who pay little if any income tax already, and who are uninsured because they simply can't afford it.

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required) with a blistering critique.

Quoting from Bush's radio address, Krugman writes: "Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be uninsured.

"Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don't need an 'incentive' to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

"Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can't afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

"Of those uninsured who aren't low-income, many can't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions -- everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won't solve their problem.

"The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we're least concerned about -- affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. . . .

"What's driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance -- that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket."

The Speechwriters

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "The address on Tuesday comes 13 days after Mr. Bush's prime-time speech on his new strategy in Iraq, one that even some Republicans have criticized as uninspiring, a rhetorical dud.

"For the people who get paid to put words in the president's mouth, the pressure is on,"

And yet, as Stolberg herself acknowledges, the heavy lifting is long past.

"At this point, Mr. Bush is well into rehearsing. By Friday, he had already had several run-throughs in the family theater of the White House, with officials including Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, listening in."

Karl Rove Watch

Holly Bailey writes for Newsweek: "After the GOP's midterm thumping, President Bush's top aide fell out of the spotlight. But behind the scenes, according to administration officials (anonymous in order to discuss White House matters), Rove has been laying the groundwork for Bush's State of the Union address and mulling how the GOP can regain momentum in 2008."

Iran Watch

Mark Mazzetti writes in the New York Times: "The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday sharply criticized the Bush administration's increasingly combative stance toward Iran, saying that White House efforts to portray it as a growing threat are uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003."

Thomas Omestad writes for U.S. News: "The Bush administration's military campaign in Iraq -- and its broader approach to the Middle East -- are morphing into a head-on struggle against Iran's growing influence. The shift portends either peril or promise. Critics fear President Bush has made another dangerous gamble that is more likely to expand the conflict than to bring Iran to heel. The clarifying focus on Iran, officials counter, offers an opportunity to block the region's leading provocateur from fomenting extremism and pursuing nuclear weapons."

Jim Hoagland writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "President Bush once again risks confusing his destiny with that of the nation. His presidency is running out of time. The United States is not. An all-or-nothing confrontation with Iran that has to be resolved before Bush leaves office is an artificial concept that will deepen American problems abroad."

Nicholas D. Kristof writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Across a broad spectrum of policy levers, Mr. Bush is raising the pressure on Iran, increasing the risk that he will drag the U.S. into a third war in an Islamic country in six years. Instead of disengaging from war, he could end up starting another."

Legacy Watch

From Bush's USA Today interview:

"Q: Did you see The Washington Post historical forum on your legacy, because one of the historians, Eric Foner, called you the worst president ever.

"A: No, I didn't see it.

"Q: Is that something that bothers you?

"A: My legacy will be written long after I'm president.

"Q: I know you're a fan of history, though. Do you see yourself as a possible Truman?

"A: I've got two years to be president. I guess people with idle time like yourself can think about this. I've got a job to do, and I'm going to do it.

"Q: Have you read about Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Do you draw any lessons from that?

"A: Yes, win. Win, when you're in a battle for the security . . . if it has to do with the security of your country, you win.

"Q: Are you worried about suffering LBJ's fate?

"A: You can ask the legacy question 20 different ways. I've got a job to do as president. People are going to analyze my presidency for a long time. All you can do is do the best you can, make decisions based upon principles, and lead. And that's what I have done and will continue to do."

Speaking of History

Ron Hutcheson writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "President Bush has called Iraq a crucial battleground in a decades-long struggle against Islamic terrorism. . . .

"Historians and Middle East experts, however, say that America's last 'long war,' the four-decade Cold War against Soviet communism, offers some cautionary lessons as the nation debates its next moves in Iraq.

"Previous presidents, they note, made many of the same arguments about Vietnam that Bush and his aides are making about Iraq: The war there was part of a larger struggle against a monolithic enemy, and Vietnam's neighbors would fall to communism like dominoes if the U.S. were defeated.

"That turned out not to be true: The U.S. lost the battle in Vietnam but won the war against communism anyway.

"Indeed, critics argue that Bush is making some of the same mistakes in Iraq that his predecessors made in Vietnam, seeing a monolithic enemy where none exists, backing questionable allies, overlooking some of the causes of the conflict and believing that victory is essential to America's future."

And Kenneth T. Walsh writes in U.S. News about how Bush increasingly sees himself in the mold of Harry Truman.

"The problem is that at least some presidential scholars believe Bush may be exaggerating the parallels. They wonder whether his response in Iraq or his approach to terrorism measures up to the sort of hard-eyed realism or long-term vision displayed by Truman. . . .

"[Presidential scholar Robert Dallek] has reached his own controversial conclusion, and Bush would not be pleased. 'Bush will be remembered more for the war in Iraq than the war on terrorism,' the historian told U.S. News. 'The war in Iraq is a disaster. And there is no grand strategy for the war on terrorism.' Unless Bush can turn Iraq around or somehow elevate the war on terrorism to a historic level, 'he will be seen as a failed president,' Dallek contends.

"Yet Bush appears to believe he is destined to win the war on terrorism, according to friends. 'He believes he is there for a reason,' says a confidant, 'and he should try as hard as he can -- and leave the rest to God.'"

How Bush Chose Escalation

Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker write in The Washington Post: "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a surprise for President Bush when they sat down with their aides in the Four Seasons Hotel in Amman, Jordan. Firing up a PowerPoint presentation, Maliki and his national security adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki said he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority.

"The president listened intently to the unexpected proposal at their Nov. 30 meeting, according to accounts from several administration officials. Bush seemed impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea. . . .

"Bush was headed down a path that would result in his defying critics and the seeming message of the November elections by ordering 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq. A reconstruction of the administration's Iraq policy review, based on more than a dozen interviews with senior advisers, Bush associates, lawmakers and national security officials, reveals a president taking the lead in driving the process toward one more effort at victory -- despite doubts along the way from his own military commanders, lawmakers and the public at large."

Missing from the story, however, is any acknowledgement that Bush is running around telling another story altogether. (Watch for it again tomorrow night.)

As I wrote in my Jan. 12 column, Bush is pushing a revisionist explanation not supported by the facts. For instance, here's how Bush on Jan. 11 described that same sequence of events: "The [Iraqi] Prime Minister came and said, look, I understand we've got to do something about this violence, and here is what I suggest we do. Our commanders looked at it, helped fine-tune it so it would work."

Warrantless Wiretapping Watch

The Washington Post editorial board writes: "When the Bush administration announced that it had belatedly put its warrantless wiretapping program under court supervision, its attitude was like that of a traffic officer trying to hurry along bystanders at an accident scene: 'Move right along, folks, nothing to look at here.' . . .

"But there is no way for lawmakers to make a determination about the program on the basis of information they have and every reason for them to be skeptical of the administration's assurances, given its previous intransigence."

The New York Times editorial board sees "a familiar pattern: First, Mr. Bush and his aides say his actions are so vital to national security that to even report on them -- let alone question them -- lends comfort to the terrorists. Then, usually when his decisions face scrutiny from someone other than a compliant Republican Congress, the president seems to compromise.

"Behind this behavior are at least two dynamics, both of them disturbing.

"The first is that the policies Mr. Bush is trying so hard to hide have little, if anything, to do with real national security issues -- and everything to do with a campaign, spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney, to break the restraints on presidential power imposed after Vietnam and Watergate. And there is much less than meets the eye to Mr. Bush's supposed concessions."

Twin Watch

Paul Bedard writes for U.S. News that Jeann Bush "is shopping a book proposal to major publishers in New York City. We're told that the project is vague and that she's initially gauging publishers' interest. The White House wouldn't comment, but others suggested that the former grade school teacher is interested in writing a children's book or tale about her experiences."

The Rich Little Controversy

Paul Farhi writes in The Washington Post: "The White House press corps last week found itself embroiled in controversy -- a controversy over its efforts to avoid controversy at an event whose guests include President Bush.

"Stung by criticism that comedian Stephen Colbert went too far last year in his remarks at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner, the group announced last week that it had lined up a different kind of entertainer for its next dinner on April 21: impersonator Rich Little. . . .

"Yet after Colbert made waves -- he compared the Bush administration to the Hindenburg disaster, among other things -- some wondered whether choosing Little indicated that the rough, tough White House press corps was going soft, ensuring that its honored guests from the White House would suffer not even the slightest slight.

"That's more or less how MSNBC host Keith Olbermann read it; he nominated the entire correspondents' association as his 'Worst Person in the World' on his program last week." [Actually, Olbermann nominated Little, not the press corps.]

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in the New Yorker that Little's "jokes are reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's, though without the edge."

Little in an interview, told Goldberg he would use mostly political material along these lines: "'They said we're going to send jets to Israel this year, but what the hell would they do with a bunch of football players?' Iraq jokes, however, are out. . . .

"'They know I'm a safe bet over there at the White House.'"

On Lying

Frank Rich writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required) that he is seeing 2003 all over again.

"This time we must do what too few did the first time: call the White House on its lies. Lies should not be confused with euphemisms like 'incompetence' and 'denial.' . . .

"The latest lies are custom-made to prop up the new 'way forward' that is anything but. Among the emerging examples is a rewriting of the history of Iraq's sectarian violence. . . .

"An equally big lie is the administration's constant claim that it is on the same page as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as we go full speed ahead. . . .

"All of this replays 2003, when the White House refused to consider any plan, including existing ones in the Pentagon and State Department bureaucracies, for coping with a broken post-Saddam Iraq. Then, as at every stage of the war since, the only administration plan was for a propaganda campaign to bamboozle American voters into believing 'victory' was just around the corner."