Bush's Messiah Complex

"'Is that still on?' the Arab official replied sarcastically. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities."

In the Washington Times, Jon Ward and David R. Sands write: "Many Arab analysts see Mr. Bush as a lame-duck president lacking time and political clout at home and still distracted by the difficult military struggle in Iraq. With oil at nearly $100 a barrel, the U.S. economy faltering and Asia the dynamic new market for Gulf exports, Washington's economic clout is waning as well.

"Mr. Bush 'is captain of an administration that looks like a ship stuck in the mud of Iraq, in enormous internal economic problems, in an environmental impasse, and in unprecedented international controversies surrounding his leadership,' according to Hussein Shobokshi, TV commentator on the Al-Arabiya network."

Bush on the Middle East

Bush spent a lot of time in his interviews with Middle Eastern reporters trying to explain away that NIE.

"Part of the reason I'm going to the Middle East is to make it abundantly clear to nations in that part of the world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the NIE in no way lessens that threat, but in fact clarifies the threat," he told Yediot Ahronot.

He later added: "[A]nd by the way, back to the NIE very quickly. The international response ought to be that, okay, whether or not you agree with the NIE or not, at least recognize that they had a program at one point in time, and demand that Iran explain it. We shouldn't be trying to explain why we know what we know. We ought to be focusing on the Iranians to say, you tell us why you had a program; you tell us about the -- if you want to be an international player, it's up to you to explain."

Bush also spoke at length about what he called "the strategic implications of a U.S. presence in a way that bolsters governments and at the same time helps serve as a bulwark against aggressive regimes such as Iran."

In a roundtable interview with foreign print media he said he "will be also talking to our friends and allies about our strong commitment to regional security, that the United States is engaged and will remain engaged in the security of the region."

He added, somewhat cryptically: "I'm sure that these leaders fear that the United States may become isolationist and basically throw up its hands and say, who cares what happens. I will remind them that what happens in parts of the world matters to the security of the United States of America, and that we look forward to being a constructive force and working with allies like allies should do."

Here's Bush gushing to a Saudi reporter about that nation's leader: "I admire King Abdallah. I admire him because he is a man who commands a lot of respect from me, personally, and a lot of respect in the region. When he speaks, people listen. It's not to say that other people don't listen, as well, but Saudi Arabia is geographically important, is the guardian of holy sites, and he's a well-respected man."

Bush told al-Arabiya TV why he was so confident that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement could be reached within the year. "[F]or the couple of years of my administration . . . there was a difficult situation, the truth be known. One was the intifada, which made it awfully hard to discuss peace at that time. The other was the Iraq invasion. It just -- it created the conditions that made it more difficult to get people's minds in the right place to begin the process. And so now I think we've got the stars lined up, and I think we got a shot, and I'm going for it."

Bush told Channel 2 News he's not talking about achieving a completed peace agreement by the end of his term. "I think we can reach a vision of what a Palestinian state would look like," he said.

"One timetable is the departure of President George W. Bush from the White House -- not that that I'm any great, heroic figure, but they know me and they're comfortable with me and I am a known quantity. And therefore the question is will they decide to make the efforts necessary to get the deal done while I'm President, as opposed to maybe the next person won't agree with a two-state, or maybe the next person will take a while to get moving."

Bipartisan Accomplishment

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times that "the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- Pepfar, for short -- may be the most lasting bipartisan accomplishment of the Bush presidency.

"With a year left in office, Mr. Bush confronts an America bitterly split over the war in Iraq. His domestic achievements, the tax cuts and education reform, are not fully embraced by Democrats, and his second-term legislative agenda -- revamping Social Security and immigration policy -- lies in ruins.

"The global AIDS program is a rare exception. So far, roughly 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine paid for with American dollars, up from 50,000 before the initiative. Even Mr. Bush's most ardent foes, among them Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his 2004 Democratic challenger, find it difficult to argue with the numbers.

"'It's a good thing that he wanted to spend the money,' said Mr. Kerry, an early proponent of legislation similar to the plan Mr. Bush adopted. 'I think it represents a tremendous accomplishment for the country.' . . .

"Mr. Bush is pressing for a new five-year commitment of $30 billion. He will travel to Africa in February to make his case -- and, the White House hopes, burnish the compassionate conservative side of his legacy."

But even this program is not entirely free of criticism. "Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, an advocacy group here in Washington, says the Bush program has been hamstrung by 'ideologically driven policies.' . . .

"Critics, including Mr. Kerry, are particularly incensed by the requirement that one-third of the prevention funds be spent teaching abstinence, despite a lack of scientific consensus that such programs reduce the spread of H.I.V."

Lawrence Lindsey Watch

Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "About six months before the United States invaded Iraq, then-White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey famously estimated that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. The prediction ended up being way too low: As of Sept. 30, congressional analysts recently estimated, the war had cost $449 billion, and the number is still rising.

"The episode helped get Lindsey ousted from a White House intent on imposing message discipline and furious about an estimate that, even while low, was the first to hint at the larger budgetary consequences of the invasion."

The White House's official estimate at the time was that the total cost of the war would be $50 to $60 billion.

Abramowitz writes that "in a book being published this week -- 'What a President Should Know . . . But Most Learn Too Late' -- Lindsey offers for the first time what he terms 'the true story' behind his estimate, including what he sees as a mistaken White House strategy to play down the costs of war to maintain public support for an invasion."

It Depends on the Meaning of the Word 'Major'

Ken Herman of Cox News Service profiles White House political strategist Barry Jackson: "Jackson is taking a realistic view of what's possible in Bush's final year in office. He sees little to no chance for a Social Security overhaul but has hopes for other Bush domestic initiatives, including health care.

"'Major is kind of a subjective word,' he said when asked if any major Bush initiatives can win approval. 'I do think there is a chance for things to get done. I don't think you can be in the White House serving the president and not have anything but that feeling.'"

McGovern Urges Impeachment

Former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern writes in a Washington Post opinion piece that "the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era? . . .

"Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

"But what are the facts?

"Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard."

Doug Feaver blogs for washingtonpost.com that in the seven months he's been monitoring reader comments he's "seen nothing to match the number of respondents" to the McGovern piece.